Allan J Walkey1, Renda Soylemez Wiener. 1. Boston University School of Medicine, The Pulmonary Center, R-304, 715 Albany Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA. alwalkey@bu.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE: Although evidence supporting use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is strong, evidence varies widely for other causes of acute respiratory failure. OBJECTIVES: To compare utilization trends and outcomes associated with NIV in patients with and without COPD. METHODS: We identified 11,659,668 cases of acute respiratory failure from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample during years 2000 to 2009 and compared NIV utilization trends and failure rates for cases with or without a diagnosis of COPD. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The proportion of patients with COPD who received NIV increased from 3.5% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2009 (250% increase), and the proportion of patients without COPD who received NIV increased from 1.2% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2009 (400% increase). The rate of increase in the use of NIV was significantly greater for patients without COPD (18.1% annual change) than for patients with COPD (14.3% annual change; P = 0.02). Patients without COPD were more likely to have failure of NIV requiring endotracheal intubation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.22; P < 0.0001). Patients in whom NIV failed had higher hospital mortality than patients receiving mechanical ventilation without a preceding trial of NIV (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.17; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of NIV during acute respiratory failure has increased at a similar rate for all diagnoses, regardless of supporting evidence. However, NIV is more likely to fail in patients without COPD, and NIV failure is associated with increased mortality.
RATIONALE: Although evidence supporting use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is strong, evidence varies widely for other causes of acute respiratory failure. OBJECTIVES: To compare utilization trends and outcomes associated with NIV in patients with and without COPD. METHODS: We identified 11,659,668 cases of acute respiratory failure from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample during years 2000 to 2009 and compared NIV utilization trends and failure rates for cases with or without a diagnosis of COPD. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The proportion of patients with COPD who received NIV increased from 3.5% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2009 (250% increase), and the proportion of patients without COPD who received NIV increased from 1.2% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2009 (400% increase). The rate of increase in the use of NIV was significantly greater for patients without COPD (18.1% annual change) than for patients with COPD (14.3% annual change; P = 0.02). Patients without COPD were more likely to have failure of NIV requiring endotracheal intubation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.22; P < 0.0001). Patients in whom NIV failed had higher hospital mortality than patients receiving mechanical ventilation without a preceding trial of NIV (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.17; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of NIV during acute respiratory failure has increased at a similar rate for all diagnoses, regardless of supporting evidence. However, NIV is more likely to fail in patients without COPD, and NIV failure is associated with increased mortality.
Authors: Andrés Esteban; Niall D Ferguson; Maureen O Meade; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Carlos Apezteguia; Laurent Brochard; Konstantinos Raymondos; Nicolas Nin; Javier Hurtado; Vinko Tomicic; Marco González; José Elizalde; Peter Nightingale; Fekri Abroug; Paolo Pelosi; Yaseen Arabi; Rui Moreno; Manuel Jibaja; Gabriel D'Empaire; Fredi Sandi; Dimitros Matamis; Ana María Montañez; Antonio Anzueto Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Tasnim Sinuff; Neill K J Adhikari; Maureen O Meade; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Claudio M Martin; Deborah J Cook Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Htut K Win; Angel E Caldera; Kelly Maresh; John Lopez; Charanjit S Rihal; Manish A Parikh; Juan F Granada; Sachin Marulkar; Deborah Nassif; David J Cohen; Neal S Kleiman Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas S Valley; Allan J Walkey; Peter K Lindenauer; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Colin R Cooke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Nicole Rosendale; Elan L Guterman; John P Betjemann; S Andrew Josephson; Vanja C Douglas Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Neha N Goel; Clark Owyang; Shamsuddoha Ranginwala; George T Loo; Lynne D Richardson; Kusum S Mathews Journal: Respir Care Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Colin R Cooke; Laura C Feemster; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Maya E O'Neil; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Chest Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Mihaela S Stefan; Meng-Shiou Shieh; Penelope S Pekow; Nicholas Hill; Michael B Rothberg; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: Chest Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Aylin Ozsancak Ugurlu; Samy S Sidhom; Ali Khodabandeh; Michael Ieong; Chester Mohr; Denis Y Lin; Irwin Buchwald; Imad Bahhady; John Wengryn; Vinay Maheshwari; Nicholas S Hill Journal: Lung Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 2.584