This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Online Supplement All Versions of this Article: 200408-1028OCv1 172/10/1276    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lacherade, J.-C. Articles by Brochard, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lacherade, J.-C. Articles by Brochard, L.

Impact of Humidification Systems on Ventilator-associated Pneumonia

A Randomized Multicenter Trial

Medical, Surgical, and Neurosurgical Intensive Care Units, and Department of Anesthesiology, Henri Mondor Hospital; AP-HP, Université Paris 12, and INSERM U651, Créteil; and Infectious Diseases Intensive Care Unit, Bichat Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Laurent Brochard, M.D., Réanimation Médicale, CHU Henri Mondor, 51 avenue du maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94000 Créteil, France. E-mail: laurent.brochard{at}hmn.aphp.fr

Rationale and objectives: The respective influence on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia of currently available systems used for warming and humidifying the gases delivered to mechanically ventilated patients, that is, heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchanger filters, remains controversial.

Methods: We addressed this question in a multicenter randomized study comparing heated humidifiers (with heated circuits) and filters in an unselected population of 369 intensive care patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h.

Main Measurements and Results: The diagnosis of pneumonia was confirmed according to strict microbiologic criteria. There was no difference in pneumonia rate between the two groups (53 of 184 [28.8%] versus 47 of 185 [25.4%] for humidifiers versus filters; p = 0.48), or in the incidence density of pneumonia (27.4/1,000 ventilatory days versus 25.3/1,000 ventilatory days for humidifiers versus filters; p = 0.76). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation did not differ between the two groups (14.9 ± 15.1 versus 13.5 ± 16.3 days for humidifiers versus filters, p = 0.36). Endotracheal tube occlusion occurred, respectively, in five patients and one patient in the humidifier and filter groups (p = 0.12). Intensive care mortality was identical in the two groups (about 33%).

Conclusion: These results suggest that both heated humidifiers and heat and moisture exchanger filters can be used with no significant impact on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and that other criteria may justify their choice.

Key Words: mechanical ventilation • endotracheal tube • nosocomial infection

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Lorente, S. Blot, and J. Rello Evidence on measures for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia Eur. Respir. J., December 1, 2007; 30(6): 1193 - 1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. MacLeod and T. Bucknall Mechanical ventilation with heated humidifiers or with heat and moisture exchangers with microbiological filters did not reduce ventilator associated pneumonia in adults Evid. Based Nurs., July 1, 2006; 9(3): 82 - 82. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. B. Milbrandt, A. Ishizaka, and D. C. Angus Update in critical care 2005. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 15, 2006; 173(8): 833 - 841. [Full Text] [PDF]