Article

Use of Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure, 2000-2009: A Population-Based Study.

The Pulmonary Center, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine.
Annals of the American Thoracic Society 02/2013; 10(1):10-17. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201206-034OC
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rationale: Although evidence supporting use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is strong, evidence varies widely for other causes of acute respiratory failure. Objectives: To compare utilization trends and outcomes associated with NIV in patients with and without COPD. Methods: We identified 11,659,668 cases of acute respiratory failure from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample during years 2000 to 2009 and compared NIV utilization trends and failure rates for cases with or without a diagnosis of COPD. Measurements and Main Results: The proportion of patients with COPD who received NIV increased from 3.5% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2009 (250% increase), and the proportion of patients without COPD who received NIV increased from 1.2% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2009 (400% increase). The rate of increase in the use of NIV was significantly greater for patients without COPD (18.1% annual change) than for patients with COPD (14.3% annual change; P = 0.02). Patients without COPD were more likely to have failure of NIV requiring endotracheal intubation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.22; P < 0.0001). Patients in whom NIV failed had higher hospital mortality than patients receiving mechanical ventilation without a preceding trial of NIV (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.17; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: The use of NIV during acute respiratory failure has increased at a similar rate for all diagnoses, regardless of supporting evidence. However, NIV is more likely to fail in patients without COPD, and NIV failure is associated with increased mortality.

2 Followers
 · 
53 Views
  • Respiratory care 01/2015; 60(1):144-6. DOI:10.4187/respcare.03850 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Tanaffos 01/2013; 12(2):6-8.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionDelivering synchronous assist during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is challenging with flow or pressure controlled ventilators, especially in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) uses diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) to control the ventilator. We evaluated patient-ventilator interaction in patients with COPD during NIV with pressure support ventilation (PSV) and NAVA using a recently introduced automated analysis.Methods Twelve COPD patients underwent three 30-minute trials: 1) PSV with dedicated NIV ventilator (NIV-PSVVision), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSVServo-I), and 3) with NIV-NAVA. EAdi, flow, and airway pressure were recorded. Patient-ventilator interaction was evaluated by comparing airway pressure and EAdi waveforms with automated computer algorithms. The NeuroSync index was calculated as the percentage of timing errors between airway pressure and EAdi.ResultsThe NeuroSync index was higher (larger error) for NIV-PSVVision (24 [IQR 15-30] %) and NIV-PSVServo-I (21 [IQR 15-26] %) compared to NIV-NAVA (5 [IQR 4-7] %; P <0.001). Wasted efforts, trigger delays and cycling-off errors were less with NAVA (P <0.05 for all). The NeuroSync index and the number of wasted efforts were strongly correlated (r2¿=¿0.84), with a drastic increase in wasted efforts after timing errors reach 20%.Conclusions In COPD patients, non-invasive NAVA improves patient-ventilator interaction compared to PSV, delivered either by a dedicated or ICU ventilator. The automated analysis of patient-ventilator interaction allowed for an objective detection of patient-ventilator interaction during NIV. In addition, we found that progressive mismatch between neural effort and pneumatic timing is associated with wasted efforts.
    Critical care (London, England) 10/2014; 18(5):550. DOI:10.1186/s13054-014-0550-9