ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Heat Moisture Exchange (HME) device with conventional humidification in neonates. Sixty-four neonates were randomized at intubation to receive conventional humidification (CH) (n = 34) or HME, via a Neoaid device (n = 30). Groups were compared for intrinsic characteristics and outcome variables. Data were assumed nonparametric and analyzed by Mann-Whitney and Fisher's Exact test. No significant differences were found in group characteristics or outcome variables. Trends were noted for documented patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), endotracheal tube blockage, and positive endotracheal aspirate culture. Rate of pneumothorax 2/34 (CH) versus 4/30 (HME) (p = 0.4); rate of tube blockage 3/34 (CH) versus 2/30 (HME) (p = 1.0); rate of PDA 8/34 (CH) versus 14/30 (HME) (p = 0.093) and rate of endotracheal colonisation 17/34 (CH) versus 9/30 (HME) (p = 0.17). No significant difference was found for duration of ventilation or period in greater than 40% oxygen between the two groups. There were no significant outcome differences between CH and HME. The HME device was cost-effective and simple to use. A larger multicenter trial is warranted to confirm the efficacy of HME.
Keywords
Heat moisture exchange - neonates - ventilation
