Skip to main content
Respiratory Care logoLink to Respiratory Care
. 2024 Oct;69(10):1332–1335. doi: 10.4187/respcare.11959

Effect of Helmet CPAP on Tidal Volume Assessed by Bioelectrical Impedance

Marco Giani 1,, Emanuele Rezoagli 2, Davide Raimondi Cominesi 3, Lorenza Moretto 4, Benedetta Fumagalli 5, Francesco Cipulli 6, Alberto Lucchini 7, Matteo Pozzi 8, Giuseppe Foti 9
PMCID: PMC11469013  PMID: 39043426

Introduction

Patients with acute respiratory failure may exhibit an excessive respiratory drive that often results in large tidal volumes ( VT),1 potentially leading to patient self-inflicted lung injury.2,3 When noninvasive support strategies are used, clinicians often have limited control over large VT, which have been reported to be independently associated with failure of noninvasive respiratory support.4 Therefore, monitoring VT and minute ventilation holds high clinical relevance for optimizing the management of these patients.

CPAP is a noninvasive respiratory support modality that delivers an adjustable PEEP level that is chosen by the clinician, with free flow and no inspiratory pressure support. Accordingly, previous literature shows that CPAP does not increase VT in patients with acute respiratory failure.5 In addition, in a recently published study, the application of CPAP in a murine model of acute lung injury was shown to be a protective technique at both pulmonary and diaphragmatic levels for patient self-inflicted lung injury.6 However, a recent study by Menga et al7 reported that both CPAP and pressure-support ventilation delivered by a helmet resulted in a marked increase of VT when measured as tidal impedance variation with the electrical impedance tomography compared with a high-flow nasal cannula.

We recently validated, in healthy subjects, the ExSpiron (Respiratory Motion, Watertown, Massachusetts), a device that uses bioelectrical impedance technology, which allows noninvasive monitoring of VT and minute ventilation.8 We performed a pilot observational study that evaluated the impact of helmet CPAP on respiratory parameters. Specifically, we used the ExSpiron to verify if the application of helmet CPAP resulted in increased VT compared with baseline (before helmet CPAP).

Methods

We designed a pilot physiological study that included adult patients with clinical indications for CPAP either during the acute phase of respiratory distress or in the postextubation setting, pre-emptively addressing postextubation respiratory failure.9 The study was approved in March 2022 by the institutional review board (reference 3993) All included subjects provided written informed consent. Fresh gas flow was administered by using the DIMAR flow generator equipped with the Easy Flow monitor (DIMAR, Medolla, Italy), which offers real-time data on the fresh gas flow and delivered oxygen fraction. DimAir 500/9666 helmets (DIMAR) were used with the provided adjustable PEEP valve.

The study involved 2 steps:

  1. Baseline (before helmet application)

  2. Helmet CPAP (1 h after helmet application)

FIO2 was maintained constant. ExSpiron tracings were recorded for 10 min during each step and analyzed offline. At the end of the recordings, arterial blood samples were obtained from an indwelling line for gas analysis, and clinical parameters were recorded. To analyze the variation in respiratory parameters ( VT, breathing frequency, and minute ventilation) during the study, we used a restricted maximum likelihood method to fit a general linear mixed model. In this model, the step was considered as the independent factor, whereas subjects were treated as random effects. Clinical parameters and blood gas analyses results recorded at the end of each step were compared by using paired Student t tests. To assess whether subject severity may impact the change in VT before and after helmet CPAP implementation, we divided subjects into 2 groups based on their baseline PaO2/ FIO2, either below or above the median value. Statistical significance was considered with an alpha level of 0.05 (2 tailed). Statistical analysis was performed with JMP 16.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).

Results

Twenty patients participated in this study, including 6 women (30%) and 14 men (70%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 59 (55–71) y, and the median (IQR) body mass index was 27 (24–32) kg/m2. The most common diagnoses at ICU admission were pneumonia (5 [25%]), septic shock (5 [25%]), lung immunologic disorders (3 [15%]), and polytrauma (2 [10%]). The median IQR) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at ICU admission was 3 (2–5). The helmet was used as a noninvasive support after extubation in 15 subjects (75%), who had a median (IQR) duration of invasive ventilation of 5 (2–8) d. The remaining 5 subjects required noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The median (IQR) FIO2 was 0.5 (0.4-0.5), the median (IQR) PEEP was 8 (8-8) cm H2O, and the median (IQR) gas flow into the helmet CPAP was 90 (80–95) L/min. Oxygen therapy at the baseline condition was administered via air-entrainment mask in 11 subjects (55%) when using high-flow nasal cannula in 8 subjects (40%), and via nasal prongs in 1 subject (5%). The study results are displayed in Figure 1 and Table 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Changes in A: tidal volume (spaghetti plot); B: breathing frequency (bar plot); and C: minute ventilation (bar plot) over the 2 study steps. Data are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 1.

Blood Gas Analysis, Respiratory, and Hemodynamics Parameters in the Study

graphic file with name DE-RESC240127T001.jpg

VT did not change after helmet CPAP implementation (P = .52). Breathing frequency and minute ventilation mildly decreased (P < .001 for both parameters). Arterial blood gas analysis revealed a significant increase in PaO2/ FIO2 after helmet CPAP application, while PaCO2 remained stable. When the subjects were stratified into 2 groups based on their PaO2/ FIO2, in the low PaO2/ FIO2 group, the mean ± SD VT was 452 ± 85 mL at baseline and 457 ± 9 mL during helmet CPAP. Similarly, in the high PaO2/ FIO2 group, the mean ± SD VT was 553 ± 238 mL at baseline and 543 ± 186 mL during helmet CPAP.

Discussion

In this pilot physiological study, we analyzed the impact of helmet CPAP on the respiratory pattern and gas exchange. Oxygenation was significantly improved, breathing frequency and minute ventilation were mildly reduced, whereas VT did not vary. Our findings may have important clinical implications. Helmet CPAP is known to be an effective strategy for improving oxygenation by recruiting and stabilizing collapsed alveoli, ultimately reducing the work of breathing and enhancing ventilation-perfusion matching. The enhancement in oxygenation can be attributed to both the PEEP level and the precise delivery of oxygen fraction.10 Compared with pressure-support ventilation, CPAP does not provide any inspiratory support. For this reason, PEEP is expected to increase end-expiratory lung volume without causing a rise in VT.11

A previous study by L’Her et al5 confirmed this hypothesis by showing that CPAP did not increase VT during noninvasive support and resulted in lower VT compared with noninvasive ventilation. Our results corroborate these findings, showing that PEEP delivered through a helmet interface does not trigger an increase in ventilation. Menga et al7 reported different findings: in their physiological study, both CPAP and noninvasive ventilation by helmet significantly increased VT compared with baseline. We may explore the underlying reasons for these conflicting results. A relevant difference among the 3 studies is the level of PEEP delivered noninvasively during CPAP: a moderate PEEP level was used both in our study and in the work by L’Her et al5 (8 and 10 cm H2O, respectively), whereas the PEEP level was very high (14 cm H2O) in the work by Menga et al.7

The method for measuring the VT also differed. In our study, we used the ExSpiron device for this purpose, which demonstrated excellent trending capability in detecting changes in VT.8 L'Her et al5 used a pneumotachograph between the mask and the Y-piece, which is not a feasible option in patients on continuous flow helmet CPAP. Menga et al7 indirectly estimated VT by analyzing the tidal impedance variation (arbitrary units), which was doubled during helmet CPAP compared with baseline (high-flow nasal cannula). We must note that the estimated end-expiratory lung impedance was increased by almost 3-fold, which may have biased the VT estimation. No significant change in inspiratory effort and transpulmonary driving pressure was reported between the 2 modes. In addition, PaCO2 levels did not change, which is inconsistent with the reported doubling of minute ventilation. Also, the 3 studies7,8 varied in their study settings, including the baseline oxygen delivery method and the CPAP configuration (eg, fresh gas flow, see below). This variability in settings may have partially contributed to the differences observed in their results.

The use of a helmet interface for delivering noninvasive ventilation can lead to carbon dioxide rebreathing.12 Therefore, its application with a ventilator is generally discouraged unless a high flow-by can be set. Free-flow systems allow for the delivery of high fresh gas flows, minimizing the issue of rebreathing. In our study, our CPAP settings used a very high gas flow (median of 90 L/min), which was particularly advantageous for CO2 washout, creating conditions similar to those used in the study by L’Her et al5 with mask CPAP. A lower free flow in the helmet CPAP system could result in increased minute ventilation due to CO2 rebreathing, potentially leading to different results compared with the present study (ie, an increase in VT).

The use of the ExSpiron device for noninvasive monitoring allowed the evaluation of alterations in VT subsequent to the introduction of helmet CPAP. Our findings support the use of helmet CPAP as a valuable therapeutic approach for patients not intubated and experiencing respiratory distress. This technique improves oxygenation without the undesirable effect of increasing VT. Further research and clinical exploration are needed to reinforce and validate these findings.

Footnotes

The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Drs Giani and Rezoagli contributed equally.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Rezoagli E, Laffey JG, Bellani G. Monitoring lung injury severity and ventilation intensity during mechanical ventilation. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2022;43(3):346-368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bellani G, Grassi A, Sosio S, Gatti S, Kavanagh BP, Pesenti A, Foti G. Driving pressure is associated with outcome during assisted ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology 2019;131(3):594-604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Brochard L, Slutsky A, Pesenti A. Mechanical ventilation to minimize progression of lung injury in acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;195(4):438-442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carteaux G, Millán-Guilarte T, De Prost N, Razazi K, Abid S, Thille AW, et al. Failure of noninvasive ventilation for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: role of tidal volume. Crit Care Med 2016;44(2):282-290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.L'Her E, Deye N, Lellouche F, Taille S, Demoule A, Fraticelli A, et al. Physiologic effects of noninvasive ventilation during acute lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172(9):1112-1118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cruces P, Erranz B, Pérez A, Reveco S, González C, Retamal J, et al. Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure is a lung- and diaphragm-protective approach in self-inflicted lung injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2024;209(8):1022-1025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Menga LS, Delle Cese L, Rosà T, Cesarano M, Scarascia R, Michi T, et al. Respective effects of helmet pressure support, continuous positive airway pressure, and nasal high-flow in hypoxemic respiratory failure: a randomized crossover clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023;207(10):1310-1323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gatti S, Rezoagli E, Madotto F, Foti G, Bellani G. A non-invasive continuous and real-time volumetric monitoring in spontaneous breathing subjects based on bioimpedance—ExSpiron®Xi: a validation study in healthy volunteers. J Clin Monit Comput 2024;38(2):539-551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maggiore SM, Battilana M, Serano L, Petrini F. Ventilatory support after extubation in critically ill patients. Lancet Respir Med 2018;6(12):948-962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Giani M, Fumagalli B, Cipulli F, Rezoagli E, Pozzi M, Fumagalli D, et al. The “ZEEP-PEEP test” to evaluate the response to positive end-expiratory pressure delivered by helmet: a prospective physiologic study. Heliyon 2024;10(6):e28339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yoshida T, Uchiyama A, Matsuura N, Mashimo T, Fujino Y. The comparison of spontaneous breathing and muscle paralysis in two different severities of experimental lung injury. Crit Care Med 2013;41(2):536-545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Taccone P, Hess D, Caironi P, Bigatello LM. Continuous positive airway pressure delivered with a “helmet”: effects on carbon dioxide rebreathing. Crit Care Med 2004;32(10):2090-2096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Respiratory Care are provided here courtesy of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

RESOURCES