These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [The clinical and microbiological comparison of the use of heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchanger filters with Booster in mechanically ventilated patients].
    Author: Nadir Oziş T, Ozcan Kanat D, Oğuzülgen IK, Aydoğdu M, Hizel K, Gürsel G.
    Journal: Tuberk Toraks; 2009; 57(3):259-67. PubMed ID: 19787464.
    Abstract:
    Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most frequent nosocomial infection in intensive care units that is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, hospitalization and increased health-care costs. Various humidifiers can be used for humidification during mechanical ventilation. Many studies were conducted to identify the effects of two different humidifiers, i.e. heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchanger filters (HME), on VAP development; and HME filters were found to decrease the VAP frequency. In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of heated humidifiers and HME-Booster. Heated humidifier with conventional microbiologic filter (CMF-HH) or HME-Booster were used in randomization to 41 mechanically ventilated patients of our intensive care unit, and patients were divided into two groups as group 1 receiving CMF-HH (20 patients) and group 2 (21 patients) receiving HME-Booster. Daily secretion scores, endotracheal tube occlusion due to secretions, VAP development rate for the assessment of microbiological safety of humidifiers and differences in PETCO(2) and PaCO(2) values for the assessment of their effect on arterial blood gas were recorded prospectively. The measurement of PETCO(2) and PaCO(2) values were performed with the presence of humidifiers and after removing them in both groups. In both groups with the removal of CMF-HH and HME-Booster, a decrease in PETCO(2) value was identified, but the decrease in group 2 was statistically significant (p= 0.016). The decrease in PaCO(2) after removal of humidifiers was greater in group 2 than in group 1, but the difference was not significant (p> 0.05).The rate of VAP and endotracheal tube occlusion was not significantly different between the groups. The mean secretion score was lower in group 1 (p= 0.041). In conclusion, although both humidifiers have similar microbiological effects, heated humidifiers could be preferred particularly for the patients with an underlying chronic lung disease due to its positive effects on PETCO(2) values and secretion scores.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]