Jing Zhang1, Yan Wang1, Jie Cao1, Bao-Yuan Chen1, Jing Feng2. 1. Respiratory Department of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China. 2. Respiratory Department of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA zyyhxkfj@126.com jing.feng2@duke.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV), delivered via critical care ventilator or miniventilator, in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). METHODS: Prospective comparison study. Patients with AECOPD underwent NIPPV via: miniventilator with BiLevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP; Group A); critical care ventilator with pressure support ventilation and positive end expiratory pressure (PSV + PEEP; Group B); critical care ventilator with pressure-synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (P-SIMV)+PSV + PEEP (Group C). Physiological parameters were recorded before, during and after ventilation. RESULTS: Patients in Group C (n = 21) showed significantly better improvements in physiological parameters (compared with pretreatment values) than those in Group B (n = 20) or Group A (n = 22). CONCLUSION: NIPPV delivered via critical care ventilator has a better treatment effect than miniventilator NIPPV in patients with AECOPD. The use of P-SIMV + PSV + PEEP mode provides a significantly better treatment effect than PSV + PEEP alone.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV), delivered via critical care ventilator or miniventilator, in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). METHODS: Prospective comparison study. Patients with AECOPD underwent NIPPV via: miniventilator with BiLevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP; Group A); critical care ventilator with pressure support ventilation and positive end expiratory pressure (PSV + PEEP; Group B); critical care ventilator with pressure-synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (P-SIMV)+PSV + PEEP (Group C). Physiological parameters were recorded before, during and after ventilation. RESULTS:Patients in Group C (n = 21) showed significantly better improvements in physiological parameters (compared with pretreatment values) than those in Group B (n = 20) or Group A (n = 22). CONCLUSION: NIPPV delivered via critical care ventilator has a better treatment effect than miniventilator NIPPV in patients with AECOPD. The use of P-SIMV + PSV + PEEP mode provides a significantly better treatment effect than PSV + PEEP alone.