» Articles » PMID: 39401860

Comparison of Oronasal and Nasal Masks in Home Mechanical Ventilation: an Observational Cohort and Bench Study

Abstract

Background: In patients with chronic respiratory failure, home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is delivered through oronasal or nasal masks. Masks are a cornerstone for NIV success but can be associated with side-effects. However, the type, frequency and consequences of these side-effects are unknown. Here, we aimed to study the prevalence, nature and impact of mask-related adverse events in a cohort of stable patients. We then investigated differences between oronasal and nasal masks both in our cohort and in a bench study.

Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort including patients established on long-term NIV admitted for their elective review. Data regarding mask-related side-effects were assessed using a structured questionnaire. Our bench study was performed using a three-dimensional printed head connected to an artificial lung.

Results: 800 patients were included, of whom 84% had an oronasal mask. Moderate to very severe mask-related side-effects occurred in 47% of patients and severe to very severe side-effects occurred in 18% of patients. Side-effects were associated with poorer daytime arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (p=0.005), poorer subjective sleep quality (p=0.003) and poorer quality of life (p<0.001). Mask-related side-effects were more frequently reported with the use of oronasal masks compared to nasal masks (p=0.023). Our bench study showed that nasal masks were more stable than oronasal masks (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Mask-related side-effects are frequent and associated with poorer outcomes. Our data suggest that nasal masks may have a better tolerance profile and should be used as a first-line interface.

Citing Articles

Relevance of telemonitoring algorithms for the management of home noninvasive ventilation.

Bianquis C, El Husseini K, Razakamanantsoa L, Kerfourn A, Fresnel E, Borel J ERJ Open Res. 2025; 11(2).

PMID: 40040887 PMC: 11874130. DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00509-2024.

References
1.
Gonzalez-Bermejo J, Janssens J, Rabec C, Perrin C, Lofaso F, Langevin B . Framework for patient-ventilator asynchrony during long-term non-invasive ventilation. Thorax. 2019; 74(7):715-717. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-213022. View

2.
Pontier-Marchandise S, Texereau J, Prigent A, Gonzalez-Bermejo J, Rabec C, Gagnadoux F . Home NIV treatment quality in patients with chronic respiratory failure having participated to the French nationwide telemonitoring experimental program (The TELVENT study). Respir Med Res. 2023; 84:101028. DOI: 10.1016/j.resmer.2023.101028. View

3.
Majorski D, Callegari J, Schwarz S, Magnet F, Majorski R, Storre J . Oronasal versus Nasal Masks for Non-Invasive Ventilation in COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021; 16:771-781. PMC: 8009345. DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S289755. View

4.
Girault C, Briel A, Benichou J, Hellot M, Dachraoui F, Tamion F . Interface strategy during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2008; 37(1):124-31. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181928706. View

5.
Masa J, Mokhlesi B, Benitez I, Gomez de Terreros F, Sanchez-Quiroga M, Romero A . Long-term clinical effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure therapy versus non-invasive ventilation therapy in patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019; 393(10182):1721-1732. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32978-7. View