Comparison of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure

Citation
T. Celikel et al., Comparison of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, CHEST, 114(6), 1998, pp. 1636-1642
Citations number
25
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems","Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Journal title
CHEST
ISSN journal
00123692 → ACNP
Volume
114
Issue
6
Year of publication
1998
Pages
1636 - 1642
Database
ISI
SICI code
0012-3692(199812)114:6<1636:CONPPV>2.0.ZU;2-S
Abstract
Study objective: To compare the efficacy of standard medical therapy (ST) a nd noninvasive mechanical ventilation additional to standard medical therap y in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (HARF). Design: Single center, prospective, randomized, controlled study. Setting: Pulmonary medicine directed critical care unit in a university hos pital. Patients: Between March 1993 and November 1996, 30 HARF patients were rando mized to receive ST or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in addition to ST. Interventions: NPPV was given with an air-cushioned face via a mechanical v entilator (Puritan Bennett 7200) with initial setting of 5 cm H2O continuou s positive airway pressure and 15 cm H2O pressure support. Results: At the time of randomization, patients in the ST group had (mean /- SD) Pao(2) of 54 +/- 13 mm Hg, Paco(2) of 67 +/- 11 mm Hg, pH of 7.28 +/ - 0.02, and respiratory rate of 35.0 +/- 5.8 breaths/min. Patients in the N PPV group had Pao(2) of 55 +/- 14, Paco(2) of 69 +/- 15, PH of 7.27 +/- 0.0 7, and respiratory rate of 34.0 +/- 8.1 breaths/min. With ST, there was sig nificant improvement of only respiratory rate (p < 0.05). However, with NPP V, Pao(2) (p < 0.001), Paco(2) (p < 0.001), pH(p < 0.001), and respiratory rate (p < 0.001) improved significantly compared with baseline. Sir; hours after randomization, pH (p < 0.01) and respiratory rate (p < 0.01) in NPPV patients were significantly bet-ter than with ST. Hospital stay for NPPV vs ST patients was, respectively, 11.7 +/- 3.5 and 14.6 +/- 4.7 days (p < 0.0 5). One patient in the NPPV group required invasive mechanical ventilation. The conditions of six patients in the ST group deteriorated and they were switched to NPPV; this was successful in four patients, two failures were i nvasively ventilated. Conclusion: This study suggests that early application of NPPV in HARF pati ents facilitates improvement, decreases need for invasive mechanical ventil ation, and decreases the duration of hospitalization.