Utilization Of Non-Invasive Ventilation In Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure From 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
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.
- Revue des Maladies Respiratoires Actualites 10/2012; 4(5):443–447. DOI:10.1016/S1877-1203(12)70285-9
- Tanaffos 01/2013; 12(2):6-8.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in hospitalization, cost, and short-term outcomes in acute respiratory failure (ARF) between 2001 and 2009 in the United States. Methods: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample we identified cases of ARF based on International Classification for Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We calculated weighted frequencies of ARF hospitalizations by year and estimated population-adjusted incidence and mortality rates. We used logistic regression to examine hospital mortality rates over time while adjusting for changes in demographic characteristics and comorbidities of patients. Results: The number of hospitalizations with a diagnosis of ARF rose from 1,007,549 in 2001 to 1,917,910 in 2009, with an associated increase in total hospital costs from $30.1 billion to $54.3 billion. During the same period we observed a decrease in hospital mortality from 27.6% in 2001 to 20.6% in 2009, a slight decline in average length of stay from 7.8 days to 7.1 days, and no significant change in the mean cost per case ($15,900). Rates of mechanical ventilation (noninvasive [NIV] or invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV]) remained stable over the 9-year period, and the use of NIV increased from 4% in 2001 to 10% in 2009. Conclusions: Over the period of 2001 to 2009, there was a steady increase in the number of hospitalizations with a discharge diagnosis of ARF, with a decrease in inpatient mortality. There was a significant shift during this time toward the use of NIV, with a decrease in the rates of IMVuse.Journal of Hospital Medicine 02/2013; 8(2). DOI:10.1002/jhm.2004 · 2.30 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.