Anuj B Mehta1,2,3, Ivor S Douglas2,3, Allan J Walkey4,5. 1. 1 Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, Colorado. 2. 2 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Denver Health, Denver, Colorado. 3. 3 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 4. 4 Pulmonary Center, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 5. 5 Evans Center for Implementation and Improvement Sciences, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Strong evidence supports use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with respiratory distress from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure (strong evidence conditions [SECs]). Despite unclear benefits of NIV for other causes of acute respiratory failure, utilization for conditions with weaker evidence is increasing, despite evidence demonstrating higher mortality for patients who suffer NIV failure (progression from NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV])) compared with being treated initially with IMV. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of hospital variation in evidence-based utilization of NIV with patient outcomes. METHODS: Using the California State Inpatient Database 2011, we identified adult patients who received NIV. Patients were considered to have an SEC for NIV if they had an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to determine the association between hospital rates of NIV use for SECs and patient risk of NIV failure (need for IMV after NIV). RESULTS: Among 22,706 hospitalizations with NIV as the initial ventilatory strategy, 6,820 (30.0%) had SECs. Patients with SECs had lower risk of NIV failure than patients with weak evidence conditions (8.1 vs. 18.2%, P < 0.0001). Regardless of underlying diagnosis, patients admitted to hospitals with greater use of NIV for SECs had lower risk of NIV failure (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.80). Even patients without an SEC benefited from admission to hospitals that used NIV more often for patients with SECs (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio for NIV failure = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who received NIV did not have conditions with strong supporting evidence for its use with wide institutional variation in patient selection for NIV. Surprisingly, we found that all patients, even those without an SEC, benefited from admission to hospitals with greater evidence-based utilization of NIV, suggesting a "hospital effect" that is synergistic with patient selection.
RATIONALE: Strong evidence supports use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with respiratory distress from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure (strong evidence conditions [SECs]). Despite unclear benefits of NIV for other causes of acute respiratory failure, utilization for conditions with weaker evidence is increasing, despite evidence demonstrating higher mortality for patients who suffer NIV failure (progression from NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV])) compared with being treated initially with IMV. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of hospital variation in evidence-based utilization of NIV with patient outcomes. METHODS: Using the California State Inpatient Database 2011, we identified adult patients who received NIV. Patients were considered to have an SEC for NIV if they had an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to determine the association between hospital rates of NIV use for SECs and patient risk of NIV failure (need for IMV after NIV). RESULTS: Among 22,706 hospitalizations with NIV as the initial ventilatory strategy, 6,820 (30.0%) had SECs. Patients with SECs had lower risk of NIV failure than patients with weak evidence conditions (8.1 vs. 18.2%, P < 0.0001). Regardless of underlying diagnosis, patients admitted to hospitals with greater use of NIV for SECs had lower risk of NIV failure (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.80). Even patients without an SEC benefited from admission to hospitals that used NIV more often for patients with SECs (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio for NIV failure = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who received NIV did not have conditions with strong supporting evidence for its use with wide institutional variation in patient selection for NIV. Surprisingly, we found that all patients, even those without an SEC, benefited from admission to hospitals with greater evidence-based utilization of NIV, suggesting a "hospital effect" that is synergistic with patient selection.
Authors: Byuk Sung Ko; Shin Ahn; Kyung Soo Lim; Won Young Kim; Yoon-Seon Lee; Jae Ho Lee Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: L Brochard; J Mancebo; M Wysocki; F Lofaso; G Conti; A Rauss; G Simonneau; S Benito; A Gasparetto; F Lemaire Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Wei Jie Lim; Redhuan Mohammed Akram; Kristin V Carson; Satya Mysore; Nadina A Labiszewski; Jadwiga A Wedzicha; Brian H Rowe; Brian J Smith Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-12-12
Authors: Giacomo Bellani; John G Laffey; Tài Pham; Fabiana Madotto; Eddy Fan; Laurent Brochard; Andres Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Vesna Bumbasirevic; Lise Piquilloud; Frank van Haren; Anders Larsson; Daniel F McAuley; Philippe R Bauer; Yaseen M Arabi; Marco Ranieri; Massimo Antonelli; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Hermann Wrigge; Arthur S Slutsky; Antonio Pesenti Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Meghan D Althoff; Fernando Holguin; Fan Yang; Gary K Grunwald; Marc Moss; R William Vandivier; P Michael Ho; Tyree H Kiser; Ellen L Burnham Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Thomas S Valley; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Michael Heung; Theodore J Iwashyna; Colin R Cooke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 7.598
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: Michael A Garcia; Shelsey W Johnson; Emily K Sisson; Christopher R Sheldrick; Vishakha K Kumar; Karen Boman; Scott Bolesta; Vikas Bansal; Marija Bogojevic; J P Domecq; Amos Lal; Smith Heavner; Sreekanth R Cheruku; Donna Lee; Harry L Anderson; Joshua L Denson; Ognjen Gajic; Rahul Kashyap; Allan J Walkey Journal: Respir Care Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Arianne K Baldomero; Anne C Melzer; Nancy Greer; Brittany N Majeski; Roderick MacDonald; Eric J Linskens; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joan M Teno; Laura M Keohane; Susan L Mitchell; David J Meyers; Jennifer N Bunker; Emmanuelle Belanger; Pedro L Gozalo; Amal N Trivedi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Ahmed Mukhtar; Ahmed Lotfy; Ahmed Hasanin; Islam El-Hefnawy; Akram El Adawy Journal: Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 4.132