Peter K Lindenauer1, Mihaela S Stefan1, Meng-Shiou Shieh2, Penelope S Pekow3, Michael B Rothberg4, Nicholas S Hill5. 1. Center for Quality of Care Research, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts2Division of General Internal Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts3Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University School. 2. Center for Quality of Care Research, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts. 3. Center for Quality of Care Research, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts4University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst. 4. Department of Medicine, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Small clinical trials have shown that noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is efficacious in reducing the need for intubation and improving short-term survival among patients with severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of NIV in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with COPD treated with NIV to those treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 25 628 patients hospitalized for exacerbation of COPD who received mechanical ventilation on the first or second hospital day at 420 US hospitals participating in the Premier Inpatient Database. EXPOSURES: Initial ventilation strategy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, hospital length of stay and cost, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: In the study population, a total of 17 978 (70%) were initially treated with NIV on hospital day 1 or 2. When compared with those initially treated with IMV, NIV-treated patients were older, had less comorbidity, and were less likely to have concomitant pneumonia present on admission. In a propensity-adjusted analysis, NIV was associated with lower risk of mortality than IMV (odds ratio [OR] 0.54; [95% CI, 0.48-0.61]). Treatment with NIV was associated with lower risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.44-0.64]), lower costs (ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.67-0.69]), and a shorter length of stay (ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.82]), but no difference in 30-day all-cause readmission (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.15]) or COPD-specific readmission (OR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.91-1.22]). Propensity matching attenuated these associations. The benefits of NIV were similar in a sample restricted to patients younger than 85 years and were attenuated among patients with higher levels of comorbidity and concomitant pneumonia. Using the hospital as an instrumental variable, the strength of association between NIV and mortality was modestly attenuated (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.91]). In sensitivity analyses, the benefit of NIV was robust in the face of a strong hypothetical unmeasured confounder. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a large retrospective cohort study, patients with COPD treated with NIV at the time of hospitalization had lower inpatient mortality, shorter length of stay, and lower costs compared with those treated with IMV.
IMPORTANCE: Small clinical trials have shown that noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is efficacious in reducing the need for intubation and improving short-term survival among patients with severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of NIV in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with COPD treated with NIV to those treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 25 628 patients hospitalized for exacerbation of COPD who received mechanical ventilation on the first or second hospital day at 420 US hospitals participating in the Premier Inpatient Database. EXPOSURES: Initial ventilation strategy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, hospital length of stay and cost, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: In the study population, a total of 17 978 (70%) were initially treated with NIV on hospital day 1 or 2. When compared with those initially treated with IMV, NIV-treated patients were older, had less comorbidity, and were less likely to have concomitant pneumonia present on admission. In a propensity-adjusted analysis, NIV was associated with lower risk of mortality than IMV (odds ratio [OR] 0.54; [95% CI, 0.48-0.61]). Treatment with NIV was associated with lower risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.44-0.64]), lower costs (ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.67-0.69]), and a shorter length of stay (ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.82]), but no difference in 30-day all-cause readmission (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.15]) or COPD-specific readmission (OR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.91-1.22]). Propensity matching attenuated these associations. The benefits of NIV were similar in a sample restricted to patients younger than 85 years and were attenuated among patients with higher levels of comorbidity and concomitant pneumonia. Using the hospital as an instrumental variable, the strength of association between NIV and mortality was modestly attenuated (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.91]). In sensitivity analyses, the benefit of NIV was robust in the face of a strong hypothetical unmeasured confounder. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a large retrospective cohort study, patients with COPD treated with NIV at the time of hospitalization had lower inpatient mortality, shorter length of stay, and lower costs compared with those treated with IMV.
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: M Confalonieri; A Potena; G Carbone; R D Porta; E A Tolley; G Umberto Meduri Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: M Antonelli; G Conti; M L Moro; A Esquinas; G Gonzalez-Diaz; M Confalonieri; P Pelaia; T Principi; C Gregoretti; F Beltrame; M A Pennisi; A Arcangeli; R Proietti; M Passariello; G U Meduri Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-10-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: E Girou; F Schortgen; C Delclaux; C Brun-Buisson; F Blot; Y Lefort; F Lemaire; L Brochard Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-11-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mihaela S Stefan; Meng-Shiou Shieh; Penelope S Pekow; Michael B Rothberg; Jay S Steingrub; Tara Lagu; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Stanley Xu; Colleen Ross; Marsha A Raebel; Susan Shetterly; Christopher Blanchette; David Smith Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Katherine E Watkins; Susan M Paddock; Teresa J Hudson; Songthip Ounpraseuth; Amy M Schrader; Kimberly A Hepner; Bradley D Stein Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.492
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: 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: Stephan Braune; Annekatrin Sieweke; Franz Brettner; Thomas Staudinger; Michael Joannidis; Serge Verbrugge; Daniel Frings; Axel Nierhaus; Karl Wegscheider; Stefan Kluge Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 17.440