Mouthpiece ventilation in neuromuscular disorders: Narrative review of technical issues important for clinical success.

In neuromuscular disorders (NMDs), nocturnal non-invasive ventilation (NIV) via a nasal mask is offered when hypercapnic respiratory failure occurs. With disease progression, nocturnal NIV needs to be extended into the daytime. Mouthpiece ventilation (MPV) is an option for daytime NIV. MPV represents a difficult task for home ventilators due to rapidly changing load conditions resulting from intermittent connections and disconnections from MPV circuit. The 252nd ENMC International Expert Workshop, held March 6th to 8th 2020 in Amsterdam, reported general guidelines for management of daytime MPV in NMDs. This report could not present all the detail regarding the technical issues important for clinical success of MPV. Based on the expert workshop discussions and the evidence from existing studies, the current narrative review aims to identify the technical issues of MPV and offers guidance via a decisional algorithm and educational figures providing relevant information that is important for successful implementation of MPV.

Passive Versus Active Circuit During Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Subjects With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, it has been considered essential to maintain the use of a double-limb circuit in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to avoid rebreathing expired air during invasive mechanical ventilation. Currently, life-sustaining home ventilators can work with a single, lighter circuit that is easier to manage. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a single-limb circuit with intentional leaks (passive circuit) in comparison with a circuit with an expiratory valve (active circuit), in subjects with ALS who use invasive home ventilation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center study. The enrolled subjects were divided into 2 groups according to the type of exhalation port. The aim of the study was to compare arterial blood gases; nocturnal oxygen saturation recordings; and the occurrence of adverse events, both clinical and technical events. In addition, we compared the rate of mortality and unplanned hospital admissions that occurred within a year after discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects were included in our study: 23 who used a passive circuit and 20 who used an active circuit. No significant difference in nocturnal and diurnal gas exchanges was detected. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the active circuit group (85% in active circuit vs 30% in passive circuit, P < .001). However, by splitting the adverse events into 2 categories, clinical and technical, the technical events were significantly more frequent in the active circuit group. None of these events led to hospital admission or death. CONCLUSIONS: The passive circuit was shown to be as effective and safe as the active circuit during home invasive ventilation in the subjects with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. A future randomized controlled study is necessary to confirm these results and to extend indications to other pathologies.

Comparing airways clearance techniques in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis: positive expiratory pressure or temporary positive expiratory pressure? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Airway clearance techniques include positive expiratory pressure, commonly used in our clinical practice, and a recently introduced temporary positive expiratory pressure device called UNIKO®. It is unclear which one provides the best benefit to patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this observational 4-year study was to retrospectively compare the efficacy of and specific indications for temporary positive expiratory pressure compared to positive expiratory pressure in a standard rehabilitation program. METHOD: We retrospectively collected data from 162 subjects (107 males, mean age 70±9 years, 97 with primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 65 with bronchiectasis), 51 treated with temporary positive expiratory pressure and 111 with positive expiratory pressure. RESULTS: Subjects showed significant improvement in ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (p<0.001), forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow, arterial oxygen saturation, and partial pressure arterial oxygen with no significant difference between positive expiratory pressure and temporary positive expiratory pressure groups apart from forced expiratory flow, which increased only in the positive expiratory pressure group. Evaluating specific subgroups, temporary positive expiratory pressure was more effective than positive expiratory pressure in improving gas transfer in subjects with emphysema and in those on oxygen therapy, as the effective supplement oxygen flow decreased significantly (p=0.034 and 0.046 respectively for temporary positive expiratory pressure vs. positive expiratory pressure). In subjects on mechanical ventilation, positive expiratory pressure was superior to temporary positive expiratory pressure in increasing forced expiratory flow (p=0.018). CONCLUSION: The physiological parameters of both groups improved significantly and similarly. Subgroup analysis suggests that temporary positive expiratory pressure could provide some advantage to subjects with emphysema and those on oxygen therapy, while positive expiratory pressure would benefit patients on mechanical ventilation. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to confirm our preliminary results indicating that different subgroups/phenotypes can benefit more from one type of treatment.