The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of all the ventilators proposed for home noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in children in France.The ventilators (one volume-targeted, 12 pressure-targeted and four dual) were evaluated on a bench which simulated six different paediatric ventilatory patterns. For each ventilator, the quality of the inspiratory and expiratory trigger and the ability to reach and maintain the preset pressures and volumes were evaluated with the six patient profiles.The performance of the ventilators showed great variability, and depended upon the type of trigger (flow or pressure), type of circuit and patient profile. Differences were observed between the preset and measured airway pressure and between the tidal volume measured by the ventilator and on the bench. Leaks were associated with an inability to detect the patient's inspiratory effort or autotriggering. No single ventilator was able to adequately ventilate the six paediatric profiles. Only a few ventilators were able to ventilate the profiles simulating the youngest patients.A systematic paediatric bench evaluation is recommended for every ventilator proposed for home ventilation, in order to detect any dysfunction and guide the choice of the appropriate ventilator for a specific patient.

Treatment of OSAS with auto-nCPAP initiated at home is effective and reliable and reduces the time from diagnosis to therapy and the cost of treatment.

The choice of the interface for NPPV in children is determined by the patient's age and the underlying disease. Discomfort is the main reason for mask change.

BACKGROUND: Daytime mouthpiece ventilation is a useful adjunct to nocturnal noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with neuromuscular disease. The aims of the study were to analyze the practice of mouthpiece ventilation and to evaluate the performance of ventilators for mouthpiece ventilation. METHODS: Practice of mouthpiece ventilation was assessed by a questionnaire, and the performance of 6 home ventilators with mouthpiece ventilation was assessed in a bench test using 24 different conditions per ventilator: 3 mouthpieces, a child and an adult patient profile, and 4 ventilatory modes. RESULTS: Questionnaires were obtained from 30 subjects (mean age 33 ؎ 11 y) using NIV for 12 ؎ 7 y. Fifteen subjects used NIV for > 20 h/day, and 11 were totally ventilatordependent. The subject-reported benefits of mouthpiece ventilation were a reduction in dyspnea (73%) and fatigue (93%) and an improvement in speech (43%) and eating (27%). The bench study showed that none of the ventilators, even those with mouthpiece ventilation software, were able to deliver mouthpiece ventilation without alarms and/or autotriggering in each condition. Alarms and/or ineffective triggering or autotriggering were observed in 135 of the 198 conditions. The occurrence of alarms was more common with a large mouthpiece without a filter compared to a small mouthpiece with a filter (P < .001), but it was not related to the patient profile, the ventilatory mode, or the type of ventilator. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects are satisfied with mouthpiece ventilation. Alarms are common with home ventilators, although less common in those with mouthpiece ventilation software. Improvements in home ventilators are needed to facilitate the expansion of mouthpiece ventilation.

The six home ventilators tested in the study were able to maintain a minimal tidal volume during an increase in airway resistance and a decrease in lung compliance, but not during a non-intentional leak.