Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Relating to Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema in an Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: To compare the application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the treatment of patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled study performed in an ICU, patients with CPE were assigned to NIV (n=56) or CPAP (n=54). Primary outcome was intubation rate. Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, improvement of gas exchange, complications, ICU and hospital mortality, and 28-day mortality. The outcomes were analyzed in hypercapnic patients (PaCO2>45mmHg) with no underlying chronic lung disease.

RESULTS: Both devices led to similar clinical and gas exchange improvement; however, in the first 60min of treatment a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio was observed in the NIV group (205±112 in NIV vs. 150±84 in CPAP, P=.02). The rate of intubation was similar in both groups (9% in NIV vs. 9% in CPAP, P=1.0). There were no differences in duration of ventilation, ICU and length of hospital stay. There were no significant differences in ICU, hospital and 28-d mortality between groups. In the hypercapnic group, there were no differences between NIV and CPAP.

CONCLUSIONS: Either NIV or CPAP are recommended in patients with CPE in the ICU. Outcomes in the hypercapnic group with no chronic lung disease were similar using NIV or CPAP.