ArticleJournal of anesthesia2016
Work of breathing using different interfaces in spontaneous positive pressure ventilation: helmet, face-mask, and endotracheal tube.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of head helmets to deliver noninvasive ventilatory support: a comprehensive review of technical aspects and clinical findings.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
- Analogy between classical Yoga/Zen breathing and modern clinical respiratory therapy.Journal of anesthesia · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNoninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) using a helmet is expected to cause inspiratory trigger delay due to the large collapsible and compliant chamber. We compared the work of breathing (WOB) of NPPV using a helmet or a full face-mask with that of invasive ventilation by tracheal intubation.
methodsWe used a lung model capable of simulating spontaneous breathing (LUNGOO; Air Water Inc., Japan). LUNGOO was set at compliance (C) = 50 mL/cmH2O and resistance (R) = 5 cmH2O/L/s for normal lung simulation, C = 20 mL/cmH2O and R = 5 cmH2O/L/s for restrictive lung, and C = 50 mL/cmH2O and R = 20 cmH2O/L/s for obstructive lung. Muscle pressure was fixed at 25 cmH2O and respiratory rate at 20 bpm. Pressure support ventilation and continuous positive airway pressure were performed with each interface placed on a dummy head made of reinforced plastic that was connected to LUNGOO. We tested the inspiratory WOB difference between the interfaces with various combinations of ventilator settings (positive end-expiratory pressure 5 cmH2O; pressure support 0, 5, and 10 cmH2O).
resultsIn the normal lung and restrictive lung models, WOB decreased more with the face-mask than the helmet, especially when accompanied by the level of pressure support. In the obstructive lung model, WOB with the helmet decreased compared with the other two interfaces. In the mixed lung model, there were no significant differences in WOB between the three interfaces.
conclusionNPPV using a helmet is more effective than the other interfaces for WOB in obstructive lung disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.