Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) and heated humidifiers (HHs) in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

BackgroundThe aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials are to evaluate the effects of active heated humidifiers (HHs) and moisture exchangers (HMEs) in preventing artificial airway occlusion and pneumonia, and on mortality in adult critically ill patients. In addition, we planned to perform a meta-regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between the incidence of artificial airway occlusion, pneumonia and mortality and clinical features of adult critically ill patients.MethodsComputerized databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HHs and HMEs and reporting artificial airway occlusion, pneumonia and mortality as predefined outcomes. Relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval for each outcome and I 2 were estimated for each outcome. Furthermore, weighted random-effect meta-regression analysis was performed to test the relationship between the effect size on each considered outcome and covariates.ResultsEighteen RCTs and 2442 adult critically ill patients were included in the analysis. The incidence of artificial airway occlusion (RR = 1.853; 95% CI 0.792–4.338), pneumonia (RR = 932; 95% CI 0.730–1.190) and mortality (RR = 1.023; 95% CI 0.878–1.192) were not different in patients treated with HMEs and HHs. However, in the subgroup analyses the incidence of airway occlusion was higher in HMEs compared with HHs with non-heated wire (RR = 3.776; 95% CI 1.560–9.143). According to the meta-regression, the effect size in the treatment group on artificial airway occlusion was influenced by the percentage of patients with pneumonia (β = -0.058; p = 0.027; favors HMEs in studies with high prevalence of pneumonia), and a trend was observed for an effect of the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) (β = -0.108; p = 0.054; favors HMEs in studies with longer MV time).ConclusionsIn this meta-analysis we found no superiority of HMEs and HHs, in terms of artificial airway occlusion, pneumonia and mortality. A trend favoring HMEs was observed in studies including a high percentage of patients with pneumonia diagnosis at admission and those with prolonged MV. However, the choice of humidifiers should be made according to the clinical context, trying to avoid possible complications and reaching the appropriate performance at lower costs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1710-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tidal Volume Lowering by Instrumental Dead Space Reduction in Brain-Injured ARDS Patients: Effects on Respiratory Mechanics, Gas Exchange, and Cerebral Hemodynamics

“…Our protocol led to an increase in the proportion of patients showing ∆P ≤ 14 cmH 2 O from 39 to 89%, thus suggesting a possible clinical benefit by this approach. Although V T and ∆P reductions are among the most important modifiable factors capable of improving survival during ARDS [47], the use of HH was not associated with improved clinical outcome in wide unselected cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients [48]. In previous studies, however, the use of HH was not systematically accompanied by V T reduction as it is in our protocol, so that any possible benefit could have been underestimated.…”

Tracheostomy care and decannulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline

“…Therefore, there must be a 24 h humidification strategy in place for all patients with a tracheostomy. Mechanical ventilation ideally requires humidification and this can be achieved through different methods with no distinct advantages of one against the other [31]. Concerns were raised early on in the UK's pandemic experience regarding the potential for "wet" circuits to generate virus-laden aerosols at times of disconnection.…”

Heat and moisture exchangers versus heated humidifiers for mechanically ventilated adults and children

“…Following data extraction, we included 34 studies (36 citations) and excluded 29 (29 citations). Two studies (76 participants) are awaiting classification, one by Nadir Oziş 2009 until data can be obtained from authors and one by Oguz 2013 identified from a recently published review (Vargas 2017).…”