ArticleRespiratory care2024
Development of a New Method for Evaluating Heat and Moisture Exchanger Performance.
Article in Respiratory care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA model system described in International Organization for Standardization 9360 is the standard method for estimating the humidifying performance of heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs). However, there are no reliable bedside methods for evaluating the ongoing humidification performance of HMEs. Therefore, this study aimed to develop 2 clinically applicable methods for estimating the ongoing humidifying performance of HMEs and to evaluate their reliability in a model system.
methodsPhysiologically expired gas was simulated using a heated humidifier, and ventilation was delivered using a ventilator with constant flow through 3 different types of HMEs. Relative humidity (RH) was measured using a capacitive-type moisture sensor. Water content lost during expiration was calculated by integrating absolute humidity (AH), instantaneous gas flow measured at the expiratory outlet of the ventilator, and time. We also calculated the water content released and captured by the HMEs during tidal ventilation by integrating the difference in AH across the HMEs, instantaneous gas flow, and time.
resultsWe found that the RH, temperature, and AH were almost constant on the expiratory outlet of the ventilator but rapidly varied near the HMEs. The water content lost by the 3 HMEs was associated with the manufacturer-reported values and inversely correlated with the calculated values of the water content exchanged by the HMEs. The water content released and captured by HMEs was closely correlated with the difference in HME weight measured at the end of inspiration and expiration; however, the water content captured by HMEs seemed to be overestimated.
conclusionsOur results demonstrated that our system was able to detect the differences in the performance of 3 models of HMEs and suggest that our method for calculating water loss is reliable for estimating the water retention performance of HMEs during mechanical ventilation, even in the presence of a constant flow.
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.