The total face mask is more comfortable than the oronasal mask in noninvasive ventilation but is not associated with improved outcome.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) is commonly used to improve ventilation and oxygenation and avoid endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Although clinically indicated, most patients fail to use NPPV due to mask intolerance. A total face mask was designed to increase compliance, but whether this translates into better outcome (improvement in clinical and blood gas parameters and less intubation) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We compared the evolution of the clinical parameters, blood gases, levels of ventilatory support and rate of endotracheal intubation using the total face mask or the traditional oronasal mask during NPPV. METHODS: A total of 60 patients were randomized to use either mask during NPPV. The clinical and laboratory parameters, as well as the level of ventilatory support were recorded at different intervals in both groups for up to 6 h. In addition, the tolerance for each mask and the need for endotracheal intubation were compared. RESULTS: Patients tolerated the total face mask significantly better (p = 0.0010) and used NPPV for a longer time (p = 0.0017) when compared with the oronasal mask. Just 1 patient switched to the total face mask because of intolerance. Although better tolerated, the rate of endotracheal intubation was similar in both groups (p = 0.4376), as was the clinical and laboratory evolution. CONCLUSIONS: The total face mask was more comfortable, allowing the patients to tolerate NPPV longer; however, these accomplishments did not translate into a better outcome. Due to its comfort, the total face mask should be available, at least as an option, in units where NPPVs are routinely applied.

Which functional parameters can help differentiate severe asthma from COPD?

The aim of this study was to identify the respiratory function parameters that help in the accurate diagnosis of asthma and COPD. We studied 20 asthma and 30 COPD patients who underwent lung function tests including spirometry and plethysmography both with bronchodilator test and diffusion with carbon monoxide (DLCO). The tests were performed according to International Guidelines (ATS/ERS). The asthma patients were younger (mean age = 48) than those in the COPD group (mean age = 59) and this group also had more female patients (65%) than the COPD group (40%). The results showed a more severe obstruction in the asthma group: FEV1/FVC= 59% versus 66% for COPD. There was also a greater bronchodilator response as shown by changes in absolute and percentage values for FEV1 in the asthma group. Average DLCO values were normal in the asthma group (103%P) and lower in the COPD (69%). In plethysmography the asthma group had a higher residual volume (%P) and a higher airway resistance. We concluded that many functional parameters were useful in distinguishing the asthma and COPD groups. In individual analysis, DLCO was the parameter which best aided in an accurate diagnosis in both groups, with a higher specificity for COPD. The bronchodilator response measured by changes in FEV1 showed a higher sensitivity for asthma. Thus, these two tests are highlighted in the differential diagnosis of obstructive diseases.

Comparison between total lung capacity and residual volume values obtained by pletysmography and single breath methods with methane.

We analyzed pulmonary function tests of twenty asthmatic patients from Gaffrée e Guinle University Hospital, classified according to Brazilian Guidelines for Asthma (2002), similar to GINA, into mild persistent or moderate (9) or severe (11) asthma. We obtained parameters from spirometry, plethysmograph (PL) and single breath technique for diffusion capacity (SB), with methane. Total lung capacity and residual volume were called TLC(PL) and RV(PL) when measured by pletysmography and TLC(SB) and RV(SB) when determined by single breath test. There were 13 women and 7 men with mean age of 47.6 years. The pulmonary dysfunction degree to FEV1/FVC was 58.8% with CI95=53.9 to 63.6. The mean values in litres for TLC(PL) (5.94) and RV(PL) (2.55) were significantly higher than for TLC(SB) (4.73) and RV(SB) (1.66). Multiple regression equations were determined for TLC(PL) e RV(PL) using only single breath values, TLC(SB) or RV(SB), and spirographic para- meters, with significant regression coefficients. However, the inclusion of spirometric parameters, except for FVC, did not improve the predicted capacity for the equations. Considering only the TLC(SB), r(2)=0.79, the equation is: TLC(PL)=(TLC(SB) *1.025)+1.088, with EPE=0.64. The regression for RV(PL), r(2) =0.23, is: RV(PL)=(RV(SB) *0.9268)+1.012. The results obtained after bronchodilation with 400 mcg of salbutamol did not improve the regression. We concluded that the SB technique did not obtain the same results as pletysmography for TLC and RV, but for TLC this difference can be predicted.

Comparação dos valores da capacidade pulmonar total e do volume residual obtidos pelas técnicas pletismográfica e radiológica / Comparison between total lung capacity and residual volume values obtained by plethysmographic and radiographic techiniques

Introdução: a determinação dos volumes pulmonares é desejada como complemento da espirografia; contudo, o alto custo do equipamento faz com que seu uso seja restrito e que novas técnicas sejam investigadas. Metodologia: foram analisados 20 asmáticos, em acompanhamento no HU Gaffrée Guinle, classificados, segundo Consenso Brasileiro (2002), em asma moderada (n=9) e grave (n=11). Foram obtidos os valores da capacidade pulmonar total e volume residual pelas técnicas pletismográficas, CPTPL e VRPL, e radiológicas, CPTRA e VRRA, além dos parâmetros da espirografia. Resultados: a amostra foi constituída por 13 mulheres e 7 homens, sendo a média de idade de 47,6 anos. A intensidade da disfunção, medida pela relação VEF1/CVF foi de 58,8% (IC95% entre 53,9% e 63,6%). Os valores, expressos em litros e pela média, da CPTPL (5,94) e VRPL (2,55) foram significativamente diferentes daqueles valores de CPTRA (4,60) e VRRA (2,94). A prova broncodilatadora não produziu alteração na CPT, em nenhuma das técnicas; contudo, alterou significativamente o VR, em ambas. Foram determinadas equações de regressão para previsão dos valores de CPTPL e VRPL, a partir de parâmetros espirográficos e radiológicos. A melhor regressão linear univariada, com r2=0,88, é: CPTPL= (CPTRA*1,072)+0,9981, sendo o erro padrão de 0,48. A regressão para VR, com r2=0,76, é: VRPL=(VRRA*1,02)-0,4451. Conclusão: a técnica radiológica não dá resultados iguais aos da pletismográfica, para CPT e VR, tanto antes como após a broncodilatação.