Comparison of oronasal and nasal mask in home mechanical ventilation: observational cohort and bench study.

Journal

The European respiratory journal
ISSN: 1399-3003
Titre abrégé: Eur Respir J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8803460

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 11 11 2023
accepted: 14 09 2024
medline: 15 10 2024
pubmed: 15 10 2024
entrez: 14 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

In patients with chronic respiratory failure, home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is delivered through nasal or oronasal masks. Masks are a cornerstone for NIV success but can be associated with side effects. However, the type, the frequency and the consequences of these side effects are unknown. Here, we aimed to study the prevalence, nature, and impact of mask-related adverse events in a cohort of stable patients. We then investigated differences between oronasal and nasal masks both in our cohort and in a bench study. Prospective observational cohort including patients established on long-term non-invasive ventilation admitted for their elective review. Data regarding mask-related side effects were assessed using a structured questionnaire. Our bench study was performed using a 3-D printed head connected to an artificial lung. Eight hundred patients were included of whom, 84% had a oronasal mask. Moderate to very severe mask-related side effects occurred in 47% of patients and severe to very severe side effects occurred in 18%. Side effects were associated to a poorer daytime PaCO Mask-related side effects are frequent and associated with poorer outcome. Our data suggest that nasal masks may have a better tolerance profile and should be used as a first-line interface.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In patients with chronic respiratory failure, home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is delivered through nasal or oronasal masks. Masks are a cornerstone for NIV success but can be associated with side effects. However, the type, the frequency and the consequences of these side effects are unknown. Here, we aimed to study the prevalence, nature, and impact of mask-related adverse events in a cohort of stable patients. We then investigated differences between oronasal and nasal masks both in our cohort and in a bench study.
METHODS METHODS
Prospective observational cohort including patients established on long-term non-invasive ventilation admitted for their elective review. Data regarding mask-related side effects were assessed using a structured questionnaire. Our bench study was performed using a 3-D printed head connected to an artificial lung.
RESULTS RESULTS
Eight hundred patients were included of whom, 84% had a oronasal mask. Moderate to very severe mask-related side effects occurred in 47% of patients and severe to very severe side effects occurred in 18%. Side effects were associated to a poorer daytime PaCO
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Mask-related side effects are frequent and associated with poorer outcome. Our data suggest that nasal masks may have a better tolerance profile and should be used as a first-line interface.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02010-2023 PMID: 39401860
pubmed: 39401860
pii: 13993003.02010-2023
doi: 10.1183/13993003.02010-2023
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright ©The authors 2024. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.

Auteurs

Emeline Fresnel (E)

Kernel Biomedical, Rouen, France.
These authors contributed equally to this work.

Christian Caillard (C)

Normandie Univ, UNIRouen, EA3830-GRHV, Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (IRIB), Rouen, France.
Elbeuf-Louviers-Val de Reuil Intercommunal Hospital, Medical and Chirurgical Intensive Care Unit, Saint-Aubin-Lès-Elbeuf, France.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
ORCID: 0009-0006-4880-5205

Marius Lebret (M)

Kernel Biomedical, Rouen, France.
Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Erphan UR20201, Paris-Saclay University, Versailles, France.
Vent'Lab, Angers University Hospital, University of Angers, Angers, France.

Léa Razakamanantsoa (L)

AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service de Pneumologie (Département R3S), Paris, France.
Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France.

Adrien Kerfourn (A)

Kernel Biomedical, Rouen, France.

Johan Dupuis (J)

Asten Santé, Isneauville, France.

Jean-François Muir (JF)

ADIR Association, Rouen, France.

Elodie Lhuillier (E)

Maison Laffite, France.

Kinan El Husseini (K)

Service de Pneumologie A, Hôpital Bichat, FHU APOLLO, AP-HP, Paris, France.
INSERM UMRS1152 Physiopathologie et épidémiologie des maladies respiratoires, Université Paris-Cité, Paris, France.

Thomas Similowski (T)

Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France.
AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Département R3S, Paris, France.

Antoine Cuvelier (A)

Normandie Univ, UNIRouen, EA3830-GRHV, Institute for Research and Innovation in Biomedicine (IRIB), Rouen, France.
Service de Pneumologie, Soins Intensifs Respiratoires, CHU de Rouen, Rouen, France.
ORCID: 0000-0003-0263-1845

Maxime Patout (M)

Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France Maxime.patout@aphp.fr.
AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service des pathologies du sommeil (Département R3S), Paris, France.
ORCID: 0000-0002-1366-8726

Classifications MeSH