BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been proposed to shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation in intubated patients, especially those who fail initial weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). However, there are also some discrepancies in terms of weaning success or failure, incidence of re-intubation, complications observed during study and patient outcomes. The primary objective of this update was to specifically investigate the role of NIPPV on facilitating weaning and avoiding re-intubation in patients intubated for different etiologies of acute respiratory failure, by comparing with conventional invasive weaning approach. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing noninvasive weaning of early extubation and immediate application of NIPPV with invasive weaning in intubated patients from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Knowledge and Springerlink databases. Records from conference proceedings and reference lists of relevant studies were also identified. RESULTS: A total of 11 RCTs with 623 patients were available for the present analysis. Compared with IMV, NIPPV significantly increased weaning success rates (odds ratio (OR): 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.46 - 4.30, P = 0.0009), decreased mortality (OR: 0.39, 95%CI: 0.20 - 0.75, P = 0.005), and reduced the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (OR: 0.17, 95%CI: 0.08 - 0.37, P < 0.00001) and complications (OR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.07 - 0.72, P = 0.01). However, effect of NIPPV on re-intubation did not reach statistical difference (OR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.33 - 1.11, P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Early extubation and immediate application of NIPPV is superior to conventional invasive weaning approach in increasing weaning success rates, decreasing the risk of mortality and reducing the incidence of VAP and complications, in patients who need weaning from IMV. However, it should be applied with caution, as there is insufficient beneficial evidence to definitely recommend it in terms of avoiding re-intubation.
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been proposed to shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation in intubated patients, especially those who fail initial weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). However, there are also some discrepancies in terms of weaning success or failure, incidence of re-intubation, complications observed during study and patient outcomes. The primary objective of this update was to specifically investigate the role of NIPPV on facilitating weaning and avoiding re-intubation in patients intubated for different etiologies of acute respiratory failure, by comparing with conventional invasive weaning approach. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing noninvasive weaning of early extubation and immediate application of NIPPV with invasive weaning in intubated patients from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Knowledge and Springerlink databases. Records from conference proceedings and reference lists of relevant studies were also identified. RESULTS: A total of 11 RCTs with 623 patients were available for the present analysis. Compared with IMV, NIPPV significantly increased weaning success rates (odds ratio (OR): 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.46 - 4.30, P = 0.0009), decreased mortality (OR: 0.39, 95%CI: 0.20 - 0.75, P = 0.005), and reduced the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (OR: 0.17, 95%CI: 0.08 - 0.37, P < 0.00001) and complications (OR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.07 - 0.72, P = 0.01). However, effect of NIPPV on re-intubation did not reach statistical difference (OR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.33 - 1.11, P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Early extubation and immediate application of NIPPV is superior to conventional invasive weaning approach in increasing weaning success rates, decreasing the risk of mortality and reducing the incidence of VAP and complications, in patients who need weaning from IMV. However, it should be applied with caution, as there is insufficient beneficial evidence to definitely recommend it in terms of avoiding re-intubation.
Authors: Carmen Sílvia Valente Barbas; Alexandre Marini Ísola; Augusto Manoel de Carvalho Farias; Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti; Ana Maria Casati Gama; Antonio Carlos Magalhães Duarte; Arthur Vianna; Ary Serpa Neto; Bruno de Arruda Bravim; Bruno do Valle Pinheiro; Bruno Franco Mazza; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho; Carlos Toufen Júnior; Cid Marcos Nascimento David; Corine Taniguchi; Débora Dutra da Silveira Mazza; Desanka Dragosavac; Diogo Oliveira Toledo; Eduardo Leite Costa; Eliana Bernadete Caser; Eliezer Silva; Fabio Ferreira Amorim; Felipe Saddy; Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas; Gisele Sampaio Silva; Gustavo Faissol Janot de Matos; João Claudio Emmerich; Jorge Luis dos Santos Valiatti; José Mario Meira Teles; Josué Almeida Victorino; Juliana Carvalho Ferreira; Luciana Passuello do Vale Prodomo; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Luiz Claudio Martins; Luis Marcelo Sá Malbouisson; Mara Ambrosina de Oliveira Vargas; Marco Antonio Soares Reis; Marcelo Brito Passos Amato; Marcelo Alcântara Holanda; Marcelo Park; Marcia Jacomelli; Marcos Tavares; Marta Cristina Paulette Damasceno; Murillo Santucci César Assunção; Moyzes Pinto Coelho Duarte Damasceno; Nazah Cherif Mohamed Youssef; Paulo José Zimmermann Teixeira; Pedro Caruso; Péricles Almeida Delfino Duarte; Octavio Messeder; Raquel Caserta Eid; Ricardo Goulart Rodrigues; Rodrigo Francisco de Jesus; Ronaldo Adib Kairalla; Sandra Justino; Sergio Nogueira Nemer; Simone Barbosa Romero; Verônica Moreira Amado Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2014 Jul-Sep