The European respiratory journal · 2025
Comparison of oronasal and nasal masks in home mechanical ventilation: an observational cohort and bench study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fresnel Emeline, Caillard Christian, Lebret Marius, Razakamanantsoa Léa, Kerfourn Adrien, Dupuis Johan, Muir Jean-François, Lhuillier Elodie, El Husseini Kinan, Similowski Thomas, Cuvelier Antoine, Patout Maxime
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic respiratory failure, home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is delivered through oronasal or nasal masks. Masks are a cornerstone for NIV success but can be associated with side-effects. However, the type, frequency and 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: This was a prospective observational cohort including patients established on long-term NIV admitted for their elective review. Data regarding mask-related side-effects were assessed using a structured questionnaire. Our bench study was performed using a three-dimensional printed head connected to an artificial lung.
RESULTS: 800 patients were included, of whom 84% had an 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% of patients. Side-effects were associated with poorer daytime arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (p=0.005), poorer subjective sleep quality (p=0.003) and poorer quality of life (p<0.001). Mask-related side-effects were more frequently reported with the use of oronasal masks compared to nasal masks (p=0.023). Our bench study showed that nasal masks were more stable than oronasal masks (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Mask-related side-effects are frequent and associated with poorer outcomes. Our data suggest that nasal masks may have a better tolerance profile and should be used as a first-line interface.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort including patients established on long-term NIV admitted for their elective review. Data regarding mask-related side-effects were assessed using a structured questionnaire. Our bench study was performed using a three-dimensional printed head connected to an artificial lung.
RESULTS: 800 patients were included, of whom 84% had an 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% of patients. Side-effects were associated with poorer daytime arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (p=0.005), poorer subjective sleep quality (p=0.003) and poorer quality of life (p<0.001). Mask-related side-effects were more frequently reported with the use of oronasal masks compared to nasal masks (p=0.023). Our bench study showed that nasal masks were more stable than oronasal masks (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Mask-related side-effects are frequent and associated with poorer outcomes. Our data suggest that nasal masks may have a better tolerance profile and should be used as a first-line interface.