The right interface for the right patient in noninvasive ventilation: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Research in the field of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has contributed to the development of new NIV interfaces. However, interface tolerance plays a crucial role in determining the beneficial effects of NIV therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This systematic review explores the most significant scientific research on NIV interfaces, with a focus on the potential impact that their design might have on treatment adherence and clinical outcomes. The rationale on the choice of the right interface among the wide variety of devices that are currently available is discussed here.

EXPERT OPINION

The paradigm "The right mask for the right patient" seems to be difficult to achieve in real life. Ranging from acute to chronic settings, the gold standard should include the tailoring of NIV interfaces to patients' needs and preferences. However, such customization may be hampered by issues of economic nature. High production costs and the increasing demand represent consistent burdens and have to be considered when dealing with patient-tailored NIV interfaces. New research focusing on developing advanced and tailored NIV masks should be prioritized; indeed, interfaces should be designed according to the specific patient and clinical setting where they need to be used.

Effect of Different Interfaces on FIO2 and CO2 Rebreathing During Noninvasive Ventilation

BACKGROUND

Improving [Formula: see text] and reducing CO₂ rebreathing ([Formula: see text]) are the key means to improve the therapeutic efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV). This study aimed to investigate the impact of interface design on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] during NIV.

METHODS

A simulated lung model was established to analyze 17 different interfaces. CO₂ was injected into the outlet of the simulated lung, and the noninvasive ventilator was connected to the simulated lung to simulate the application of NIV in patients with COPD with hypercapnia. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were calculated by mathematical integration of synchronously collected data pertaining to real-time pressure, flow, oxygen concentration, and CO₂ concentration in the breathing circuit. Comparisons were performed between different types (nasal vs oronasal) and models of interfaces as well as between interfaces with different leak positions. Correlation of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] with inner volume and leakage, respectively, and the correlation between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] were analyzed.

RESULTS

[Formula: see text] levels were significantly different with a nasal or an oronasal mask (0.45 ± 0.05% vs 0.41 ± 0.08%, respectively; P < .001). [Formula: see text] levels associated with different models of interfaces varied significantly (all P < .001); [Formula: see text] did not differ significantly among the different interfaces (P = .19). Leak position significantly affected [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] (all P < .001). Both inner volume and leakage significantly correlated with [Formula: see text] (r = -0.23, P < .001; r = -0.08, P = .02). There was a significant correlation between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] (r = 0.43, P < .01); the general linear equation was y = 0.17 + 0.02x (r = 0.43, R² = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

The design of the interface had a significant impact on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] during NIV. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] showed a significant positive correlation, although the effect size of correlation was moderate.

Transmission of Oral Pressure Compromises Oronasal CPAP Efficacy in the Treatment of OSA

BACKGROUND

An oronasal mask is frequently used to treat OSA. In contrast to nasal CPAP, the effectiveness of oronasal CPAP varies by unknown mechanisms. We hypothesized that oral breathing and pressure transmission through the mouth compromises oronasal CPAP efficacy.

METHODS

Thirteen patients with OSA, well adapted to oronasal CPAP, were monitored by full polysomnography, pharyngeal pressure catheter, and nasoendoscope. Patients slept with low doses of midazolam, using an oronasal mask with sealed nasal and oral compartments. CPAP was titrated during administration by the oronasal and nasal routes, and was then reduced to induce stable flow limitation and abruptly switched to the alternate route. In addition, tape sealing the mouth was used to block pressure transmission to the oral cavity.

RESULTS

Best titrated CPAP was significantly higher by the oronasal route rather than the nasal route (P = .005), and patients with > 25% oral breathing (n = 5) failed to achieve stable breathing during oronasal CPAP. During stable flow limitation, inspiratory peak flow was lower, driving pressure was higher, upper airway inspiratory resistance was higher, and retropalatal and retroglossal area were smaller by the oronasal rather than nasal route (P < .05 for all comparisons). Differences were observed even among patients with no oral flow and were abolished when tape sealing the mouth was used (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral breathing and transmission of positive pressure through the mouth compromise oronasal CPAP.

Choosing the right mask for your Asian patient with sleep apnoea: A randomized, crossover trial of CPAP interfaces

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A major challenge with the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Mask tolerability is an important determinant of adherence, however evidence to guide selection of mask interfaces is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized crossover trial of mask interfaces in CPAP therapy for moderate-to-severe OSA to assess adherence and efficacy of CPAP therapy with nasal mask, nasal pillow and oronasal masks. Demographic data, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scores and craniofacial measurements were also analysed for associations with adherence with oronasal masks.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were included in the study (mean ± SD age: 46 ± 12 years; body mass index: 29.9 ± 5.6 kg/m² ; apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI): 53.6 ± 24.0 events/h). Patients had better adherence with nasal masks (average night use: 3.96 ± 2.26 h/night) compared to oronasal masks (3.26 ± 2.18 h/night, P < 0.001) and nasal pillows (3.48 ± 2.20 h/night, P = 0.007). Residual AHI was higher with oronasal masks (7.2 ± 5.2) compared to nasal masks (4.0 ± 4.2, P < 0.001) and nasal pillows (4.1 ± 3.3, P < 0.001). Twenty-two (25.9%) patients had the best adherence with oronasal masks (4.22 ± 2.14 vs 2.93 ± 2.12 h/night, P = 0.016). These patients had lower NOSE scores (15 (0-35) vs 40 (10-55), P = 0.024) and larger menton-labrale inferioris/biocular width ratios (31 ± 3% vs 28 ± 4%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Nasal masks are the preferred interface during CPAP initiation. Patients with less nasal obstruction and a proportionally increased chin-lower lip distance to mid-face width may have better CPAP adherence with an oronasal mask interface.

Positive airway pressure adherence and mask interface in the setting of sinonasal symptoms

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Despite reports of lower positive pressure adherence rates with oronasal masks, patients with sinonasal problems are often prescribed this interface over a nasal interface. The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between mask type and therapy adherence in the setting of sinonasal symptoms.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series with chart review.

METHODS

We reviewed 328 patients who underwent positive pressure titration between January 2012 and May 2015. Follow-up adherence data were available for 218 patients (66.5%). Multivariate analysis examined whether patients with sinonasal symptoms have improved adherence with oronasal masks compared to nasal or nasal pillow interfaces.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 95 days, positive pressure adherence in patients with sinonasal symptoms was highest with the nasal pillow interface. When compared with oronasal interfaces, the odds of adequate therapy adherence were >5 times greater with nasal pillow interfaces (odds ratio [OR] = 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.61-16.80, P = .006) and >3 times greater with nasal interfaces (OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.20-11.26, P = .02) in these symptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of nasal problems does not predict the need for an oronasal mask. Positive pressure adherence rates are higher with nasal and nasal pillow interfaces compared to oronasal masks, even in patients with sinonasal complaints.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 127:2418-2422, 2017.

Oronasal Masks Require a Higher Pressure than Nasal and Nasal Pillow Masks for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Oronasal masks are frequently used for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The aim of this study was to (1) determine if CPAP requirements are higher for oronasal masks compared to nasal mask interfaces and (2) assess whether polysomnography and patient characteristics differed among mask preference groups.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all CPAP implementation polysomnograms between July 2013 and June 2014. Prescribed CPAP level, polysomnography results and patient data were compared according to mask type (n = 358).

RESULTS

Oronasal masks were used in 46%, nasal masks in 35% and nasal pillow masks in 19%. There was no difference according to mask type for baseline apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), body mass index (BMI), waist or neck circumference. CPAP level was higher for oronasal masks, 12 (10-15.5) cm H2O compared to nasal pillow masks, 11 (8-12.5) cm H2O and nasal masks, 10 (8-12) cm H2O, p < 0.0001 (Median [interquartile range]). Oronasal mask type, AHI, age, and BMI were independent predictors of a higher CPAP pressure (p < 0.0005, adjusted R(2) = 0.26.). For patients with CPAP ≥ 15 cm H2O, there was an odds ratio of 4.5 (95% CI 2.5-8.0) for having an oronasal compared to a nasal or nasal pillow mask. Residual median AHI was higher for oronasal masks (11.3 events/h) than for nasal masks (6.4 events/h) and nasal pillows (6.7 events/h), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to nasal mask types, oronasal masks are associated with higher CPAP pressures (particularly pressures ≥ 15 cm H2O) and a higher residual AHI. Further evaluation with a randomized control trial is required to definitively establish the effect of mask type on pressure requirements.

COMMENTARY

A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 1209.

Noninvasive ventilation with complex critical care ventilator in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effect of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV), delivered via critical care ventilator or miniventilator, in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).

METHODS

Prospective comparison study. Patients with AECOPD underwent NIPPV via: miniventilator with BiLevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP; Group A); critical care ventilator with pressure support ventilation and positive end expiratory pressure (PSV + PEEP; Group B); critical care ventilator with pressure-synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (P-SIMV)+PSV + PEEP (Group C). Physiological parameters were recorded before, during and after ventilation.

RESULTS

Patients in Group C (n = 21) showed significantly better improvements in physiological parameters (compared with pretreatment values) than those in Group B (n = 20) or Group A (n = 22).

CONCLUSION

NIPPV delivered via critical care ventilator has a better treatment effect than miniventilator NIPPV in patients with AECOPD. The use of P-SIMV + PSV + PEEP mode provides a significantly better treatment effect than PSV + PEEP alone.

Treatment-related risk factors for development of skin breakdown in subjects with acute respiratory failure undergoing noninvasive ventilation or CPAP

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been recognized as an effective strategy in preventing endotracheal intubation in subjects with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Some interface-related complications have also been recognized, such as skin breakdown (SB). The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of SB and identify potential treatment-related risk factors for its development in adults with ARF undergoing NIV or CPAP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a general hospital. Subjects were retrospectively enrolled in this study if they were > 18 y old and developed ARF caused by any condition in which NIV or CPAP was indicated for at least one application for a period longer than 2 h. The outcomes were the prevalence of SB and the evaluation of related risk factors. Data were extracted from the electronic medical records. A stepwise forward logistic regression model was used to identify independent risk factors for SB development.

RESULTS

A total of 375 subjects (160 males) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. Fifty-four subjects (14.4%) developed SB. The mean number of applications of NIV or CPAP carried out for > 2 h was higher in subjects with SB (7.1 ± 13.3 h) than in those without SB (4.4 ± 13.3 h) (P = .03). Subjects with SB also presented a higher total duration of NIV use (44.6 ± 118.5 h) compared with subjects without SB (21.8 ± 45.5 h) (P = .01). Subjects who developed SB presented a higher use of oronasal mask (92.6%) compared with the group that did not (21.5%) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ARF undergoing NIV or CPAP, oronasal mask use for > 26 h was independently associated with development of SB.