• M J Turtle, A H Ilsley, A J Rutten, and W B Runciman.
• Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia.
• Anaesth Intensive Care. 1987 Aug 1; 15 (3): 317-22.

AbstractSix disposable heat and moisture exchangers were tested on patients undergoing anaesthesia requiring mechanical ventilation. Inspiratory humidity and temperature were monitored to find the steady-state values reached with each device together with the times taken for these to be achieved. The exchangers were tested in a non-rebreathing T-piece circuit and in a conventional circle system with a fresh gas flow of 6 l/min: the Siemens 150 provided 28 and 32 mg of water/litre of inspired gas (at about 30 degrees C) in 10 and 5 min respectively, but is rather heavy and bulky. The Portex Humidvent provided 25 and 30 mg/l, and although taking longer to reach steady state (27 and 15 min respectively) is small, light and cheap. The Siemens 151 provided 25 and 27 mg/l in 18 and 10 min respectively, but is heavier than the Portex exchanger. The performances of these three devices were not significantly different from each other in either study (P less than 0.05). For the T-piece system the Pall and Engstrom exchangers were the next most efficient. The Pall device provided 18 and 23 mg/l (in 18 and 8 min respectively) and the Engstrom provided 20 and 23 mg/l (in 19 and 10 min respectively). In the circle system, there were no significant differences between the performances of the Portex, Siemens 151, Pall and Engstrom exchangers. The Pall is also a very effective bacterial filter and has been found to be satisfactory in the intensive care setting. The Terumo appeared to perform no better than a circle system with catheter mount (13 mg/l at 27 degrees C). It would seem that more complex humidification equipment is not necessary during anaesthesia if an efficient heat and moisture exchanger is used.

11 keywords...

hide…