Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2007
Noninvasive ventilation using a mouthpiece in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory failure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Glerant J C, Rose D, Oltean V, Dayen C, Mayeux I, Jounieaux V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) delivered via a mouthpiece (mNPPV) has been successfully used in stable chronic restrictive respiratory insufficiency, but not in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute respiratory failure (ARF).
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this matched case-control study was to compare the usefulness of mNPPV to noninvasive ventilation using a nasal or oronasal mask (nNPPV) or standard medical treatment (SMT) in COPD patients with ARF.
METHODS: Twenty-nine patients receiving mNPPV were matched with 29 patients receiving nNPPV and 29 patients receiving SMT regarding age, SAPSII, admission PaCO(2) and pH.
RESULTS: In the mNPPV group, admission PaCO(2) and pH were 78.6 +/- 12 mm Hg and 7.30 +/- 0.04, respectively. mNPPV and nNPPV avoided the need for endotracheal intubation in 27 and 25 patients, respectively (nonsignificant) whereas SMT resulted in a higher mechanical ventilation rate (13 patients). At the end of the treatment protocol, PaCO(2) was lower in the mNPPV group (62.2 +/- 9.6 mm Hg) than in the SMT group (72.4 +/- 20.4 mm Hg, p < 0.018) leading to a significantly higher pH. No significant differences were observed between the mNPPV and nNPPV groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In case of moderate respiratory acidosis, noninvasive ventilation using a mouthpiece significantly reduces the endotracheal intubation rate in comparison with SMT and therefore appears to be a second-line alternative to noninvasive ventilation delivered via a mask, especially when poorly tolerated.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this matched case-control study was to compare the usefulness of mNPPV to noninvasive ventilation using a nasal or oronasal mask (nNPPV) or standard medical treatment (SMT) in COPD patients with ARF.
METHODS: Twenty-nine patients receiving mNPPV were matched with 29 patients receiving nNPPV and 29 patients receiving SMT regarding age, SAPSII, admission PaCO(2) and pH.
RESULTS: In the mNPPV group, admission PaCO(2) and pH were 78.6 +/- 12 mm Hg and 7.30 +/- 0.04, respectively. mNPPV and nNPPV avoided the need for endotracheal intubation in 27 and 25 patients, respectively (nonsignificant) whereas SMT resulted in a higher mechanical ventilation rate (13 patients). At the end of the treatment protocol, PaCO(2) was lower in the mNPPV group (62.2 +/- 9.6 mm Hg) than in the SMT group (72.4 +/- 20.4 mm Hg, p < 0.018) leading to a significantly higher pH. No significant differences were observed between the mNPPV and nNPPV groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In case of moderate respiratory acidosis, noninvasive ventilation using a mouthpiece significantly reduces the endotracheal intubation rate in comparison with SMT and therefore appears to be a second-line alternative to noninvasive ventilation delivered via a mask, especially when poorly tolerated.