Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial
Introduction This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) – using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Termedia Publishing House
2024-05-01
|
| Series: | Archives of Medical Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.archivesofmedicalscience.com/Comparison-of-the-effectiveness-of-the-helmet-interface-using-flow-meters-versus,183947,0,2.html |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832584806836207616 |
|---|---|
| author | Fernanda dos Reis Ferreira João Carlos Ferrari Correa Eduardo Storopoli Diego Restivo Faria Karina Cassaro Natália Feitosa da Hora Raphael Ritti Rafael Akira Becker Simone Dal Corso Ivan Peres Costa Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio |
| author_facet | Fernanda dos Reis Ferreira João Carlos Ferrari Correa Eduardo Storopoli Diego Restivo Faria Karina Cassaro Natália Feitosa da Hora Raphael Ritti Rafael Akira Becker Simone Dal Corso Ivan Peres Costa Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio |
| author_sort | Fernanda dos Reis Ferreira |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) – using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator.
Material and methods
We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale.
Results
The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (p = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days).
Conclusions
This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-98c1d27765c448b8948ca9aff7991946 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1734-1922 1896-9151 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-05-01 |
| publisher | Termedia Publishing House |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Archives of Medical Science |
| spelling | doaj-art-98c1d27765c448b8948ca9aff79919462025-01-27T10:44:31ZengTermedia Publishing HouseArchives of Medical Science1734-19221896-91512024-05-012051538154610.5114/aoms/183947183947Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trialFernanda dos Reis Ferreira0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5392-9513João Carlos Ferrari Correa1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8642-9814Eduardo Storopoli2https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0448-8289Diego Restivo Faria3https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6552-6977Karina Cassaro4https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9438-1533Natália Feitosa da Hora5Raphael Ritti6https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7883-6746Rafael Akira Becker7Simone Dal Corso8https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-6796Ivan Peres Costa9https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8566-7976Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio10https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0110-7710Universidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilAssociação Paulista para Desenvolvimento da Medicina (SPDM), Hospital Lydia Storópoli, Sao Paulo, BrazilAssociação Paulista para Desenvolvimento da Medicina (SPDM), Hospital Lydia Storópoli, Sao Paulo, BrazilAssociação Paulista para Desenvolvimento da Medicina (SPDM), Hospital Lydia Storópoli, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilAssociação Paulista para Desenvolvimento da Medicina (SPDM), Hospital Lydia Storópoli, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Nove de Julho, Sao Paulo, BrazilIntroduction This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two methods for non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) – using a helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve versus a traditional mechanical ventilator. Material and methods We conducted a single-center randomized clinical trial involving 100 adult SARS-CoV-2 patients in a specialized private hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one using the helmet interface with a flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve and the other employing conventional mechanical ventilation. Our study included participant selection, blood gas analysis, assessment of respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, modified Borg scale scores, and a visual analog scale. Results The study showed no significant difference in intubation rates between the mechanical ventilation (54.3%) and helmet interface with flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve (46.8%) groups (p = 0.37). Additionally, the helmet group had a shorter average duration of use (3.4 ±1.6 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (4.0 ±1.9 days). The helmet group also had a shorter average hospitalization duration (15.9 ±7.9 days) compared to the mechanical ventilation group (17.1 ±9.5 days). Conclusions This single-center randomized clinical trial found no statistically significant differences between the two methods of non-invasive ventilation. Implications for clinical practice: using the helmet interface with the flow meter and positive end-expiratory pressure valve can simplify device installation, potentially reducing the need for intubation, making it a valuable tool for nurses and physiotherapists in daily clinical practice.https://www.archivesofmedicalscience.com/Comparison-of-the-effectiveness-of-the-helmet-interface-using-flow-meters-versus,183947,0,2.htmlhelmetnon-invasive mechanical ventilationcovid-19sars-cov-2 |
| spellingShingle | Fernanda dos Reis Ferreira João Carlos Ferrari Correa Eduardo Storopoli Diego Restivo Faria Karina Cassaro Natália Feitosa da Hora Raphael Ritti Rafael Akira Becker Simone Dal Corso Ivan Peres Costa Luciana Maria Malosá Sampaio Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial Archives of Medical Science helmet non-invasive mechanical ventilation covid-19 sars-cov-2 |
| title | Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial |
| title_full | Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial |
| title_short | Comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non-invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Controlled and randomized clinical trial |
| title_sort | comparison of the effectiveness of the helmet interface using flow meters versus the mechanical ventilator for non invasive ventilation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 controlled and randomized clinical trial |
| topic | helmet non-invasive mechanical ventilation covid-19 sars-cov-2 |
| url | https://www.archivesofmedicalscience.com/Comparison-of-the-effectiveness-of-the-helmet-interface-using-flow-meters-versus,183947,0,2.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandadosreisferreira comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT joaocarlosferraricorrea comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT eduardostoropoli comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT diegorestivofaria comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT karinacassaro comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT nataliafeitosadahora comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT raphaelritti comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT rafaelakirabecker comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT simonedalcorso comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT ivanperescosta comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial AT lucianamariamalosasampaio comparisonoftheeffectivenessofthehelmetinterfaceusingflowmetersversusthemechanicalventilatorfornoninvasiveventilationinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019controlledandrandomizedclinicaltrial |