OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term administration of noninvasive proportional assist ventilation (NIV-PAV) and pressure support ventilation (NIV-PSV). DESIGN: Prospective, crossover, randomized study. SETTING:Medicosurgical intensive care unit in a nonteaching hospital. PATIENTS: Twelve chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients admitted for hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTION: NIV-PSV and NIV-PAV given in a randomized order after baseline evaluation in continuous positive airway pressure. Using a flow-triggering ventilator, NIV-PAV was adjusted using the runaway method and compared with NIV-PSV at similar peak inspiratory airway pressure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Flow, airway pressure, and changes in esophageal pressure were measured and the tidal volume, the patient's inspiratory work of breathing, and the esophageal pressure--time product were calculated. Arterial pH and PaCO(2) were measured and breathing comfort was assessed using a visual analogic scale. Peak inspiratory airway pressure (17 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) and tidal volume were similarly increased with the two modalities with no change in respiratory rate. The change in esophageal pressure was similarly decreased (from 20 +/- 8 cm H(2)O in continuous positive airway pressure to 12 +/- 7 in NIV-PSV and 10 +/- 5 cm H(2)O in NIV-PAV) as well as inspiratory muscle effort indexes. Arterial pH and PaCO(2) were similarly improved. Breathing comfort was significantly improved in NIV-PAV (+38 +/- 38%) but not in NIV-PSV (+11 +/- 23%). The tidal volume was more variable in NIV-PAV (89 +/- 18%) than in NIV-PSV (15 +/- 8%) and changes in tidal volume variability were significantly correlated (p =.02) with changes in breathing comfort. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, NIV-PAV was able to unload inspiratory muscles similarly to NIV-PSV but may be more comfortable than NIV-PSV.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term administration of noninvasive proportional assist ventilation (NIV-PAV) and pressure support ventilation (NIV-PSV). DESIGN: Prospective, crossover, randomized study. SETTING: Medicosurgical intensive care unit in a nonteaching hospital. PATIENTS: Twelve chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasepatients admitted for hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTION: NIV-PSV and NIV-PAV given in a randomized order after baseline evaluation in continuous positive airway pressure. Using a flow-triggering ventilator, NIV-PAV was adjusted using the runaway method and compared with NIV-PSV at similar peak inspiratory airway pressure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Flow, airway pressure, and changes in esophageal pressure were measured and the tidal volume, the patient's inspiratory work of breathing, and the esophageal pressure--time product were calculated. Arterial pH and PaCO(2) were measured and breathing comfort was assessed using a visual analogic scale. Peak inspiratory airway pressure (17 +/- 3 cm H(2)O) and tidal volume were similarly increased with the two modalities with no change in respiratory rate. The change in esophageal pressure was similarly decreased (from 20 +/- 8 cm H(2)O in continuous positive airway pressure to 12 +/- 7 in NIV-PSV and 10 +/- 5 cm H(2)O in NIV-PAV) as well as inspiratory muscle effort indexes. Arterial pH and PaCO(2) were similarly improved. Breathing comfort was significantly improved in NIV-PAV (+38 +/- 38%) but not in NIV-PSV (+11 +/- 23%). The tidal volume was more variable in NIV-PAV (89 +/- 18%) than in NIV-PSV (15 +/- 8%) and changes in tidal volume variability were significantly correlated (p =.02) with changes in breathing comfort. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic obstructive pulmonary diseasepatients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, NIV-PAV was able to unload inspiratory muscles similarly to NIV-PSV but may be more comfortable than NIV-PSV.
Authors: Thierry Rusterholtz; Pierre-Edouard Bollaert; Marc Feissel; Florence Romano-Girard; Marie-Line Harlay; Michel Zaehringer; Benjamin Dusang; Philippe Sauder Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Miguel Fernández-Vivas; Juan Caturla-Such; Javier González de la Rosa; José Acosta-Escribano; Bernabé Alvarez-Sánchez; José Cánovas-Robles Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-06-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Philippe Jouvet; Allen Eddington; Valérie Payen; Alice Bordessoule; Guillaume Emeriaud; Ricardo Lopez Gasco; Marc Wysocki Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Pedro de la Oliva; Cristina Schüffelmann; Ana Gómez-Zamora; Jesus Villar; Robert M Kacmarek Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 17.440