Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of two tracheostomy heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs), namely the Shikani Oxygen HME™ (S-O HME, ball type, turbulent airflow) and Mallinckrodt Tracheolife II DAR HME (M-O HME; flapper type, linear airflow) on tracheobronchial mucosal health, oxygenation, humidification, and patient preference.
Methods: A randomized cross-over study was conducted with HME-naïve long-term tracheostomy subjects at two academic medical centers. Bronchoscopy assessments of mucosal health were performed at baseline and day 5 of HME application, along with oxygen saturation (S ) and breathed air humidity at four oxygen flow rates (1, 2, 3, and 5 lpm). Patient preference was assessed on study conclusion.
Results: Both HMEs were associated with improved mucosal inflammation and decreased mucus production (p < 0.0002), with greater improvements in the S-O HME group (p < 0.007). Both HMEs improved humidity concentration at each oxygen flow rate (p < 0.0001), without significant differences between groups. S was greater for the S-O HME versus the M-O HME across all measured oxygen flow rates (p = 0.003). At low oxygen flow rates (1 or 2 lpm), the S in the S-O HME group was similar to that of the M-O HME at higher oxygen flow rates (3 or 5 lpm; p = 0.6). Ninety percent of subjects preferred the S-O HME.
Conclusion: Tracheostomy HME uses correlated with improved indicators of tracheobronchial mucosal health, humidity, and oxygenation. The S-O HME outperformed the M-O HME with respect to tracheobronchial inflammation, S , and patient preference. Regular HME use by tracheostomy patients is recommended to optimize pulmonary health. Newer ball-type speaking valve technology additionally allows concomitant HME and speaking valve application.
Level Of Evidence: 2 Laryngoscope, 133:3422-3428, 2023.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.30795 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!