Inefficient humidification as the cause of noninvasive ventilation failure in COVID-19 patients

Kumar, Amarjeet; Sinha, Chandni; Kumar, Neeraj; Kumar, Ajeet; Singh, Kunal; Singh, Prabhat Kumar

doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2021.07.021

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inefficient humidification impairs mucociliary activity, which increases the risk of sputum retention, atelectasis, and pulmonary infection [ 6 ]. These factors play an important role in NIV failure [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Scale to Assess Humidification during Noninvasive Ventilation: A Prospective Observational Study

Pan,

Hong,

Zhong

et al. 2023

Canadian Respiratory Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To develop a novel scale to assess humidification during noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Methods. This study was performed in an ICU of a teaching hospital. Three ICU practitioners with more than 10 years of clinical experience developed an oral humidification scale with a range of 1–4 points. Each studied the current literature on humidification and examined 50 images of mouths of NIV patients with different levels of humidification. Then, through discussion, a consensus scale was developed. Next, 10 practitioners and 33 NIV patients were recruited to validate the scale. Finally, the patients rated the dryness of their mouths using the 1–4 visual scale just after the practitioners’ assessment. Talking and discussion were forbidden during the assessment, and the scorers were blinded to each other. Results. We performed 36 assessments in 33 NIV patients. Three patients were assessed twice each more than 2 days apart. The interitem correlation coefficients between the 10 practitioners ranged from 0.748 to 0.917. Fleiss’s kappa statistic was 0.516, indicating moderate agreement among practitioners. Of the 33 patients, 5 (15%) were unable to make an assessment using the 1–4 visual scale. Among the remainder, 55.7% provided scores that matched those given by the practitioners; 13.7% of scores were 1 point higher than that rated by the practitioners, and 20.7% were 1 point lower. Only 10% were beyond a 1-point difference. The kappa coefficient was 0.483 between patients and practitioners. Conclusions. The oral humidification scale showed moderate agreement between practitioners. It was also highly accurate in reflecting the level of humidification assessed by patients.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%