ArticleChest2021
Recommended Approaches to Minimize Aerosol Dispersion of SARS-CoV-2 During Noninvasive Ventilatory Support Can Cause Ventilator Performance Deterioration: A Benchmark Comparative Study.
Article in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of oronasal and nasal masks in home mechanical ventilation: an observational cohort and bench study.The European respiratory journal · 2025Observational
- Ventilator performances for non-invasive ventilation: a bench study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- A new physiological manikin to test and compare ventilation devices during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Respiratory Care Management of COPD Exacerbations.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- What Circuits, Masks and Filters Should Be Used in Home Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Lessons from COVID-19 in the management of acute respiratory failure.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2023Review
- COVID-19 Lessons Learned: Response to the Anticipated Ventilator Shortage.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- Higher mortality and intubation rate in COVID-19 patients treated with noninvasive ventilation compared with high-flow oxygen or CPAP.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Addition of bacterial filter alters positive airway pressure and non-invasive ventilation performances.The European respiratory journal · 2022Article
- Article
- ERS International Congress 2020 Virtual: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly.ERJ open research · 2021Article
- The use of head helmets to deliver noninvasive ventilatory support: a comprehensive review of technical aspects and clinical findings.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
- Particle generation during positive airway pressure therapy.Sleep medicine · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSARS-CoV-2 aerosolization during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation may endanger health care professionals. Various circuit setups have been described to reduce virus aerosolization. However, these setups may alter ventilator performance. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the consequences of the various suggested circuit setups on ventilator efficacy during CPAP and noninvasive ventilation (NIV)? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsEight circuit setups were evaluated on a bench test model that consisted of a three-dimensional printed head and an artificial lung. Setups included a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask, a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface, a single-limb circuit with a passive exhalation valve, three single-limb circuits with custom-made additional leaks, and two single-limb circuits with active exhalation valves. All setups were evaluated during NIV and CPAP. The following variables were recorded: the inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator, the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator, the triggering delay, the maximal inspiratory pressure delivered by the ventilator, the tidal volume generated to the artificial lung, the total work of breathing, and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator.
resultsWith NIV, the type of circuit setup had a significant impact on inspiratory flow preceding triggering of the ventilator (P < .0001), the inspiratory effort required to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001), the triggering delay (P < .0001), the maximal inspiratory pressure (P < .0001), the tidal volume (P = .0008), the work of breathing (P < .0001), and the pressure-time product needed to trigger the ventilator (P < .0001). Similar differences and consequences were seen with CPAP as well as with the addition of bacterial filters. Best performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with an oronasal mask. Worst performance was achieved with a dual-limb circuit with a helmet interface.
interpretationVentilator performance is significantly impacted by the circuit setup. A dual-limb circuit with oronasal mask should be used preferentially.
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.