BACKGROUND: Adequate humidification of inspired gases during mechanical ventilation is essential to mucosal structure and function. Passive humidifiers (PH), or artificial noses, have become popular. International Standard Organization (ISO) Standard 9360 describes a laboratory method for testing PHs, specifying that expiratory time should be twice inspiratory time but failing to specify expiratory flow and flow pattern. We compared the moisture output of 2 PHs (one with low and one with high dead space) at 3 expiratory flows. DESCRIPTION OF DEVICES: Two PHs were studied (Portex 600, dead space = 10 mL, and ARC ThermoFlo, dead space = 90 mL). EVALUATION METHODS: Both devices were tested for moisture output (mg H2O/L) according to ISO 9360. Moisture output was measured by determining weight loss from a water bath during a 2-hour period of ventilation at a frequency of 10 breaths/min; tidal volume of 1000 mL; and inspiratory flow of 0.5 L/s, using a square inspiratory flow waveform. Three units of each device were tested with 3 descending ramp (exponential decay) expiratory flow patterns, with mean flows of (1) 0.25 L/s; (2) 0.33 L/s; and (3) 0.5 L/s. These flows resulted in an expiratory flow duration of 4 s, 3 s, and 2 s with the 3-s flow allowing a pause of 1 s, and the 2-s flow a pause of 2 s, prior to the subsequent breath. EVALUATION RESULTS: Moisture output for both devices declined as the expiratory flow increased (reduced duration of expiratory flow). The decrease was significant at 0.5 L/s versus 0.25 L/s for the large dead-space device [mean (SD) = 29.4 (1.4) mg H2O/L vs 33.9 (0.7) mg H2O/L, p < 0.05] and at each increase in expiratory flow with the small dead-space device [25.1 (0.9) mg H2O/L vs 23.0 (1.0) mg H2O/L vs 19.7 (0.7) mg H2O/L, p < 0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: The ISO 9360 system allows ranking of devices in terms of moisture output, dead space, and resistance. Our findings suggest that the Standard should specify the expiratory flow. Flow differences may help to explain the differences in results between studies of the same devices using ISO 9360. Our findings also suggest that when expiratory flow is increased (eg, in subjects with reduced lung compliance), moisture output of PH may be lower than stated in the manufacturer's literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BransonRD, CampbellRS, ChatburnRL, CovingtonJ.AARC Clinical Practice Guideline. Humidification during mechanical ventilation. Respir Care1992;37:887–890.
2.
TsudaT, NoguchiH, TakumiY, AochiO.Optimum humidification of air administered to a tracheostomy in dogs. Scanning electron microscopy and surfactant studies. Br J Anaesth1977;49(10):965–977.
3.
FonkalsrudE, SanchezM, HigashijimaI, ArimaE.A comparative study of the effects of dry vs humidified ventilation on canine lungs. Surgery1975;78(3):373–380.
4.
HirschJA, TokayerJL, RobinsonMJ, SacknerMA. Effects of dry air and subsequent humidification as tracheal mucus velocity in dogs. J Appl Physiol1975;39(2):242–246.
5.
MarfatiaS, DonahoePK, HendrenWJ. Effects of dry and humidified gases on the respiratory epithelium in rabbits. J Pediatr Surg1975;10(5):583–592.
6.
BransonRD, DavisKJr, CampbellRS, JohnsonDJ, PorembkaDT. Humidification in the intensive care unit. Prospective study of a new protocol utilizing heated humidification and a hygroscopic condenser humidifier. Chest1993;104(6):1800–1805.
7.
SottiauxT, MignoletG, DamasP, LamyM.Comparative evaluation of three heat moisture exchangers during short-term postoperative mechanical ventilation. Chest1993;104(1):220–224.
8.
DreyfussD, DjedainiK, GrosI, MierL, Le BourdellesG, CohenY, . Mechanical ventilation with heated humidifiers or heat and moisture exchangers: effects on patient colonization and incidence of nosocomial pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1995;151(4):986–992.
9.
BransonRD, HurstJM. Laboratory evaluation of moisture output of seven airway heat and moisture exchangers. Respir Care1987;32:741–747.
10.
ShellyM, BethuneDW, LatimerRD. A comparison of five heat and moisture exchangers. Anaesthesia1986;41(5):527–532.
11.
WalkerAK, BethuneDW. A comparative study of condenser humidifiers. Anaesthesia1976;31(8):1086–1093.
12.
WeeksDB, RamseyFM. A laboratory investigation of six artificial noses for use during endotracheal anesthesia. Anesth Analg1981;62:758–763.
13.
MebiusC.A comparative evaluation of disposable humidifiers. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand1983;27(5):403–409.
14.
HayesB.Evaluation report: Heat and moisture exchangers. J Med Eng Technol1987;11:117–127.
15.
International Organization for Standardization. Anaesthetic and respiratory equipment. Heat and moisture exchangers for use in humidifying respired gases in humans, 1st ed. ISO International Standard 9360; 1992.
16.
EckerbomB, LindholmCE. Performance evaluation of six heat and moisture exchangers according to the Draft International Standard (ISO/DIS 9360)Acta Anaesthesiol Scand1990;34(5):404–409.
17.
BransonRD, DavisKJr. Evaluation of 21 passive humidifiers according to the ISO 9360 standard: moisture output, dead space, and flow resistance. Respir Care1996;41(8):736–743.
18.
Medical Devices Agency Evaluation. London: Department of Health, Scottish Home and Health Department, Welsh Office and Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland). Evaluation #63, 93, 102, 103, 109, 110, 111, 113, 141, 142, 148, 151, 152, 155, 189, 190; 1991-1996.
19.
DeryR, PelletierJ, JaquesA, ClavetM, HoudeJJ. Humidity in anesthesiology. 3. Heat and moisture patterns in the respiratory tract during anesthesia with the semi-closed system. Can Anaesth Soc J1967;14(4):287–298.
20.
IottiGA, OliveiMC, PaloA, GalbuseraC, VeronesiR, ComelliA, . Unfavorable mechanical effects of heat and moisture exchangers in ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med1997;23(4):399–405.
