AIM: To evaluate the influence of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score on the choice of mechanical ventilation method and treatment outcome. METHODS: A prospective, randomized trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit over 22 months. Research sample consisted of 129 patients who required mechanical ventilation, divided in two groups: APACHE II < or = 20 and APACHE II > 20. Both groups were than randomized for either noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Comparison was made based on patient characteristics, objective parameters and influence of APACHE II score on treatment success and failure. RESULTS:APACHE II scoring was shown to have statistical significance on outcome assessment. Statistical significance was in favour of patients with APACHE II score < or = 20 vs > 20 (ventilator associated pneumonia 0 vs. 10, tracheotomy 0 vs. 16, Intensive Care Unit mortality 0 vs 12). Furthermore, in the group with APACHE II score > 20, after randomization, there was a statistical significance in favour of noninvasive mechanical ventilation in need for tracheotomy 2 (4%) vs. 14 (28%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using good patient selection and applying strict protocols, in the group of patients with APACHE II < or = 20 all patients had successful mechanical ventilation, while in the group of patients with APACHE II > 20, noninvasive mechanical ventilation can be applied.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the influence of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score on the choice of mechanical ventilation method and treatment outcome. METHODS: A prospective, randomized trial was carried out at the multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit over 22 months. Research sample consisted of 129 patients who required mechanical ventilation, divided in two groups: APACHE II < or = 20 and APACHE II > 20. Both groups were than randomized for either noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Comparison was made based on patient characteristics, objective parameters and influence of APACHE II score on treatment success and failure. RESULTS: APACHE II scoring was shown to have statistical significance on outcome assessment. Statistical significance was in favour of patients with APACHE II score < or = 20 vs > 20 (ventilator associated pneumonia 0 vs. 10, tracheotomy 0 vs. 16, Intensive Care Unit mortality 0 vs 12). Furthermore, in the group with APACHE II score > 20, after randomization, there was a statistical significance in favour of noninvasive mechanical ventilation in need for tracheotomy 2 (4%) vs. 14 (28%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using good patient selection and applying strict protocols, in the group of patients with APACHE II < or = 20 all patients had successful mechanical ventilation, while in the group of patients with APACHE II > 20, noninvasive mechanical ventilation can be applied.