BJA Advance Access published online on February 27, 2007
British Journal of Anaesthesia, doi:10.1093/bja/aem006
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moisturizing and mechanical characteristics of a new counter-flow type heated humidifier
1 Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Section for Experimental Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany
2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen, Germany
* Corresponding author: E-mail: stefan.schumann{at}uniklinik-freiburg.de
Background: During mechanical ventilation effective conditioning of inspired air is important. In this respect, conventional humidifiers do not perform optimally. By design, a counter-flow-type humidifier should improve humidification and heating, but may increase resistance.
Methods: We investigated mechanical impedance and work of breathing (using pressure-flow characteristics and additional pressure–time product) of a new counter-flow-type humidifier, a conventional heated humidifier, and a passive heat and moisture exchanger (HME) in physical models of the respiratory system. We investigated moisturizing performance (amount of vaporized water at different air flows and ventilatory frequencies) of the two heated humidifiers. Ease of breathing through both heated humidifiers was investigated in 12 healthy volunteers blinded to the type of humidifier.
Results: Moisturizing performance of the conventional heated humidifier was flow-independent (approximately 32.5 mg vaporized water per breath at inspiratory flow rates of 30–120 litre min–1; P > 0.05) but decreased (10%; P < 0.0001) with increasing ventilatory rates (12–20 min–1). In contrast, moisturizing performance of the counter-flow-type humidifier (approximately 33.5 mg vaporized water per breath) was both flow- and rate-independent (P = 0.75). In addition, the counter-flow humidifier caused less physical work (approximately 25%) and resistance (approximately 50%) (both P < 0.05) than the other two devices. The passive HME displayed the least favourable mechanical characteristics. Ten of 12 volunteers felt breathing through the counter-flow humidifier easier than through the heated humidifier (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Compared with a conventional humidifier, the new counter-flow-type humidifier displayed improved air conditioning and mechanical characteristics. Its lower resistance, particularly at low airflows, should be of clinical benefit during spontaneous breathing and triggered assisted ventilation.
Keywords: airway, resistance; equipment, heat and moisture exchanger; equipment, heated humidifiers; humidification, efficiency; ventilation, mechanical ventilation support