A new device for 100% humidification of inspired air

Introduction:

Devices for active humidification of the inspired air in mechanically ventilated patients cause water condensation in the ventilator tubing, which may become contaminated or interfere with the function of the ventilator. The present study describes and tests the performance of a new humidifier, which is designed to eliminate water condensation.

Objectives:

To test the performance of the new humidifier at different ventilator settings in a lung model, and to compare this new humidifier with a conventional active humidifier in ventilator-treated critically ill patients.

Materials and methods:

The humidifier (Humid-Heat; Louis Gibeck AB, Upplands Väsby, Sweden) consists of a supply unit with a microprocessor and a water pump, and a humidification device, which is placed between the Y-piece and the endotracheal tube. The humidification device is based on a hygroscopic heat-moisture exchanger (HME), which absorbs the expired heat and moisture and releases it into the inspired gas. External heat and water are then added to the patient side of the HME, so the inspired gas should reach 100% humidity at 37°C (44 mg H₂O/l air). The external water is delivered to the humidification device via a pump onto a wick and then evaporated into the inspired air by an electrical heater. The microprocessor controls the water pump and the heater by an algorithm using the minute ventilation (which is fed into the microprocessor) and the airway temperature measured by a sensor mounted in the flex-tube on the patient side of the humidification device.

The performance characteristics were tested in a lung model ventilated with a constant flow (inspiratory:expiratory ratio 1:2, rate 12–20 breaths/min and a minute ventilation of 3–25 l/min) or with a decelerating flow (inspiratory:expiratory ratio 1:2, rate 12–15 breaths/min and a minute ventilation of 4.7–16.4 l/min). The device was also tested prospectively and in a randomized order compared with a conventional active humidifier (Fisher & Paykel MR730, Auckland, New Zealand) in eight mechanically ventilated, endotracheally intubated patients in the intensive care unit. The test period with each device was 24 h. The amount of fluid consumed and the amount of water in the water traps were measured. The number of times that the water traps were emptied, changes of machine filters, the suctions and quality of secretions, nebulizations, and the amount of saline instillations and endotracheal tube obstruction were recorded. In order to evaluate increased expiratory resistance due to the device, the airway pressure was measured at the end of a prolonged end-expiratory pause at 1 h of use and at the end of the test, and was compared with the corresponding pressure before the experiment. The body temperature of the patient was measured before and after the test of each device.

Results:

Both with constant flow and decelerating flow, the Humid-Heat gave an absolute humidity of 41–44 mgH₂O/l at 37°C, with the lower level at the highest ventilation. In the patients, both Humid-Heat and the conventional active humidifier (MR730) maintained temperatures, indicating that they provided the intended heat and moisture to the inspired air. With both devices, the body temperature was maintained during the test period. There was no difference in the amount of secretions, the quality of the secretions and the frequency of suctions, saline instillations or nebulizations between the test periods with the two devices. There was no endotracheal tube obstruction, and after 1 h of use and at the end of the test no increased airway resistance was found with either device. When the MR730 was used, however, the water traps needed to be emptied six to 14 (mean eight) times (total amount of fluid in the traps was 100–300 ml) and the machine filters were changed two to six (mean four) times due to an excessive amount of condensed water with flow obstruction. No condensation of water was found in the tubing with the Humid-Heat. The water consumption was 23–65 ml/h (mean 30 ml/h) with the MR730 and 4–8 ml/h (mean 6 ml/h) with the Humid-Heat (P < 0.0008). The same relations were found when the water consumption was corrected for differences in minute ventilation.

Discussion:

The new humidifier, the Humid-Heat, gave an absolute humidity of 41–44 mg/l at 37°C in the bench tests. The tests in ventilated patients showed that the device was well tolerated and that condensation in the tubing was eliminated. There was no need to empty water traps. The test period was too short to evaluate whether the new device had any other advantages or disadvantages compared with conventional humidifiers.