BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been shown to be effective in select patients enrolled in clinical trials. However, few data are available on the use of NPPV as routine standard medical care for patients with respiratory failure outside of controlled trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients receiving NPPV for a 1-yr period for acute or acute on chronic respiratory failure who did not select do not intubate/resuscitate status were evaluated. Demographic, physiological, and laboratory data were collected for as long as NPPV was provided. Data were recorded on 449 patients. Intubation rate was 18%, 24%, 38%, 40%, and 60%, respectively, for patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (n = 97), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 87), non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (n = 35), postextubation respiratory failure patients (n = 95), and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 144). The hospital mortality for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who failed NPPV was 64%. A logistic regression showed that baseline Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.10; p <.0001), Glasgow Coma Scale (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87; p <.0001), PaO2/FIO2 ratio (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; p = .02), and serum albumin (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; p < .001) were the variables associated with NPPV failure. CONCLUSION: NPPV as routine standard medical care resulted in the intubation of a similar percentage of patients with respiratory failure due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation as shown in randomized controlled trials but in a higher percent of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure than reported in these trials. NPPV failure was associated with high hospital mortality for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure.
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been shown to be effective in select patients enrolled in clinical trials. However, few data are available on the use of NPPV as routine standard medical care for patients with respiratory failure outside of controlled trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All patients receiving NPPV for a 1-yr period for acute or acute on chronic respiratory failure who did not select do not intubate/resuscitate status were evaluated. Demographic, physiological, and laboratory data were collected for as long as NPPV was provided. Data were recorded on 449 patients. Intubation rate was 18%, 24%, 38%, 40%, and 60%, respectively, for patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (n = 97), acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 87), non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (n = 35), postextubation respiratory failurepatients (n = 95), and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (n = 144). The hospital mortality for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who failed NPPV was 64%. A logistic regression showed that baseline Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.10; p <.0001), Glasgow Coma Scale (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87; p <.0001), PaO2/FIO2 ratio (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99; p = .02), and serum albumin (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57; p < .001) were the variables associated with NPPV failure. CONCLUSION:NPPV as routine standard medical care resulted in the intubation of a similar percentage of patients with respiratory failure due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation as shown in randomized controlled trials but in a higher percent of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure than reported in these trials. NPPV failure was associated with high hospital mortality for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Authors: Andres Carrillo; Gumersindo Gonzalez-Diaz; Miquel Ferrer; Maria Elena Martinez-Quintana; Antonia Lopez-Martinez; Noemi Llamas; Maravillas Alcazar; Antoni Torres Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Divay Chandra; Jason A Stamm; Brian Taylor; Rose Mary Ramos; Lewis Satterwhite; Jerry A Krishnan; David Mannino; Frank C Sciurba; Fernando Holguín Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Kirsten Neudoerffer Kangelaris; Lorraine B Ware; Chen Yu Wang; David R Janz; Hanjing Zhuo; Michael A Matthay; Carolyn S Calfee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Mihaela S Stefan; Aruna Priya; Penelope S Pekow; Tara Lagu; Jay S Steingrub; Nicholas S Hill; Brian H Nathanson; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Laurence Vignaux; Frédéric Vargas; Jean Roeseler; Didier Tassaux; Arnaud W Thille; Michel P Kossowsky; Laurent Brochard; Philippe Jolliet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 17.440