• D Lannoy, B Décaudin, J-P Resibois, F Barrier, L Wierre, S Horrent, C Batt, S Moulront, and P Odou.
• Service pharmacie, centre hospitalier, 130, avenue Louis-Herbeaux, B.P. 6367, 59385 Dunkerque cedex 1, France.
• Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2008 Feb 1; 27 (2): 148-53.

ObjectiveThis work consisted of the assessment of humidification parameters and flow resistance for different heat and moisture exchanger filters (HMEF) used in intensive care unit. Four electrostatic HMEF were assessed: Hygrobac S (Tyco); Humidvent compact S (Teleflex); Hygrovent S/HME (Medisize-Dräger); Clear-Therm+HMEF (Intersurgical).Material And MethodsHumidification parameters (loss of water weight, average absolute moisture [AAM], absolute variation of moisture) have been evaluated on a bench-test in conformity with the ISO 9360: 2000 standard, for 24h with the following ventilatory settings: tidal volume at 500 ml, respiratory rate at 15 c/min, and inspiration/expiration ratio at 1:1. The flow resistance of HMEFs assessed using the pressure drop method was measured before and after 24h of humidification for three increasing air flows of 30, 60, and 90 l/min.ResultsAll the HMEFs allowed satisfactory level of humidification exceeding 30 mgH(2)O/l. The less powerful remained the Clear-Therm. Concerning HMEFs flow resistance, results showed a pressure drop slightly more important for the Hygrobac S filter as compared with other filters.ConclusionThis test showed differences between the HMEFs for both humidification and resistance parameters. When compared to the new version of the standards, HMEFs demonstrated their reliability. However, evolution of humidification and flow resistance characteristics over 24h showed a structural degradation of HMEFs, limiting their use over a longer period.

10 keywords...

hide…