International journal of general medicine · 2022
Factors and Outcomes Associated with Failed Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liang Ya-Ru, Lan Chou-Chin, Su Wen-Lin, Yang Mei-Chen, Chen Sin-Yi, Wu Yao-Kuang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The decision guild for non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) application in acute respiratory failure (ARF) patients still needs to work out.
METHODS: Adult patients with acute hypoxemic or hypercapnic respiratory failure were recruited and treated with NPPV or primary invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Patients' characteristic and clinical outcomes were recorded. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals for baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses by reason behind successful NPPV were conducted to ascertain if any difference could influence the outcome.
RESULTS: A total of 4525 ARF patients were recruited in our facility between year 2015 and 2017. After exclusion, 844 IMV patients, 66 patients with failed NPPV, and 74 patients with successful NPPV were enrolled. Statistical analysis showed APACHE II score (aOR = 0.93), time between admission and start NPPV (aOR = 0.92), and P/F ratio (aOR = 1.04) were associated with successful NPPV. When comparing with IMV patients, failed NPPV patients displayed a significantly lower APACHE II score, higher Glasgow Coma Scale, longer length of stay in hospital, longer duration of invasive ventilation, RCW/Home ventilator, and some comorbidities.
CONCLUSION: APACHE II score, time between admission and start NPPV, and PaO2 can be predictors for successful NPPV. The decision of NPPV application is critical as ARF patients with failed NPPV have various worse outcomes than patients receiving primary IMV.
METHODS: Adult patients with acute hypoxemic or hypercapnic respiratory failure were recruited and treated with NPPV or primary invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Patients' characteristic and clinical outcomes were recorded. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals for baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses by reason behind successful NPPV were conducted to ascertain if any difference could influence the outcome.
RESULTS: A total of 4525 ARF patients were recruited in our facility between year 2015 and 2017. After exclusion, 844 IMV patients, 66 patients with failed NPPV, and 74 patients with successful NPPV were enrolled. Statistical analysis showed APACHE II score (aOR = 0.93), time between admission and start NPPV (aOR = 0.92), and P/F ratio (aOR = 1.04) were associated with successful NPPV. When comparing with IMV patients, failed NPPV patients displayed a significantly lower APACHE II score, higher Glasgow Coma Scale, longer length of stay in hospital, longer duration of invasive ventilation, RCW/Home ventilator, and some comorbidities.
CONCLUSION: APACHE II score, time between admission and start NPPV, and PaO2 can be predictors for successful NPPV. The decision of NPPV application is critical as ARF patients with failed NPPV have various worse outcomes than patients receiving primary IMV.