• B Louis, K Leroux, D Isabey, B Fauroux, and F Lofaso.
• Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, Garches, France.
• Eur. Respir. J. 2010 Mar 1;35(3):627-36.

AbstractMost pressure-support devices use a single circuit with an exhalation port integrated in the mask. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of masks having different manufacturer-inserted leaks on ventilator performance. We simulated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and restrictive disease. Four ventilators (VENTImotion (Weinmann, Hamburg, Germany), VPAP III STA (ResMed, Saint Priest, France), Synchrony 2 (Respironics, Nantes, France) and Vivo 40 (Breas, Saint Priest)) were tested with the recommended masks and with the masks having the largest and smallest leaks. Tests were performed with pressure support levels of 10, 15 and 20 cmH(2)O. The in vivo evaluation compared two ventilators using recommended masks opposed in terms of exhaled port resistance. The ventilators were tested with their recommended mask, and after mask exchange. The mask with the largest leak induced auto-triggering and/or increased inspiratory-trigger sensitivity was the VENTImotion under both simulated conditions and VPAP III STA under the simulated obstructive-disease condition. The mask with the smallest leak-increased inspiratory-trigger delay was Synchrony 2 in the simulated obstructive-disease condition and increased rebreathing. The in vivo study confirmed the bench results. When switching to a mask that has a different leak, evaluation is needed to adjust trigger sensitivity and pressurisation level and to check the absence of rebreathing.

9 keywords...

hide…