Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 25;13:116. doi: 10.1186/s13613-023-01200-2

Table 2.

Physiological variables of healthy volunteers according to each device

O2-mask HFNC CPAP Helmet-NIV Mask-NIV p
VT, mL 644 [571–764] 819* [609–918] 648 [586–770] 1110* [661–1305] 1086* [833–1243]  < 0.0001

VT,

mL/kg PBW

8.8 [7.8–10.2] 10.7* [9.6–12.4] 9.0 [8.3–10.8] 14.3* [10.3–18.0] 14.0* [11.4–17.4]  < 0.0001
RR, breaths/min 11 [9–15] 8 [6–11] 14 [11–16] 18* [15–20] 14* [11–20]  < 0.0001
MV, L/min 6.6 [5.7–10.8] 5.9 [5.0–9.2] 9.8 [7.3–11.1] 14.3* [11.2–23.1] 13.0* [11.4–15.2]  < 0.0001
Delta EELV vs O2-mask, mL  + 214 [374–711]  + 705 [951–1286]  + 939 [1115–1417]  + 226 [364–635]  < 0.0001
Anterior ventilation, % 47 [43–51] 46 [44–52] 43 [40–53] 51* [45–55] 51* [47–58] 0.0001
Discomfort scale 2 [1–3] 4* [3–6] 3* [2–6] 7* [6–8] 4* [4, 5]  < 0.0001

O2-mask: non-rebreather oxygen mask; HFNC: high-flow oxygen through nasal cannula; CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure; Helmet-NIV: noninvasive ventilation with a Helmet; Mask-NIV: noninvasive ventilation with an oronasal mask; VT: tidal volume; PBW: predicted body weight; RR: respiratory rate; EELV; end-expiratory lung volume

Data are presented as median [25th–75th interquartile range]. P value presented is overall comparison on one-way ANOVA

*p < 0.05 vs. O2-mask