Category
Oral - Applied
Description
Computational models were run with a myriad of patient mouth openings to determine the impact this parameter had on the effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and high velocity nasal insufflation (HVNI) oxygen therapies. The metric determining therapy effectiveness was airway CO2 reduction. Numerous mouth openings were tested using a coarse mesh to narrow the range of mouth openings to be investigated using the finer (validated) mesh. The use of the coarse mesh saved ~6 weeks of computation time, but also highlighted the dangers that can arise when using computational techniques without a rigorous validation process. The coarse models were not used to draw final conclusions concerning therapy effectiveness. Validated models were run for mouth openings of 5, 10, 20, 30, and 100 percent. A mouth opening of 20 percent yielded the largest discrepancy between therapy types, with HFNC having ~3.5 mg more CO2 in the airway at end-exhale than HVNI. Clinicians can use these results to 1) Better understand the benefits and drawbacks of certain non-invasive therapies; 2) Instruct patients to follow breathing techniques that can increase the effectiveness of therapy being administered. The results are also a reminder of the dangerous nature of data collected from models with poor/nonexistent validation processes.
Determining the Effect of Patient Mouth Opening on Non-Invasive Respiratory Therapy Effectiveness
Oral - Applied
Computational models were run with a myriad of patient mouth openings to determine the impact this parameter had on the effectiveness of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and high velocity nasal insufflation (HVNI) oxygen therapies. The metric determining therapy effectiveness was airway CO2 reduction. Numerous mouth openings were tested using a coarse mesh to narrow the range of mouth openings to be investigated using the finer (validated) mesh. The use of the coarse mesh saved ~6 weeks of computation time, but also highlighted the dangers that can arise when using computational techniques without a rigorous validation process. The coarse models were not used to draw final conclusions concerning therapy effectiveness. Validated models were run for mouth openings of 5, 10, 20, 30, and 100 percent. A mouth opening of 20 percent yielded the largest discrepancy between therapy types, with HFNC having ~3.5 mg more CO2 in the airway at end-exhale than HVNI. Clinicians can use these results to 1) Better understand the benefits and drawbacks of certain non-invasive therapies; 2) Instruct patients to follow breathing techniques that can increase the effectiveness of therapy being administered. The results are also a reminder of the dangerous nature of data collected from models with poor/nonexistent validation processes.
Comments
Doctorate