Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in elderly cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Whether high-flow nasal oxygen can improve clinical signs of acute respiratory failure in acute heart failure (AHF) is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of high-flow oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on respiratory rate in patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) for AHF-related acute respiratory failure.

DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, randomized pilot study in three French EDs. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to suspected AHF were included. Key exclusion criteria were urgent need for intubation, Glasgow Coma Scale <13 points or hemodynamic instability.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (minimum 50 l/min) or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation.

OUTCOMES MEASURE

The primary outcome was change in respiratory rate within the first hour of treatment and was analyzed with a linear mixed model. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulse oximetry, heart rate, blood pressure, blood gas samples, comfort, treatment failure and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

Among the 145 eligible patients in the three participating centers, 60 patients were included in the analysis [median age 86 (interquartile range (IQR), 90; 92) years]. There was a median respiratory rate of 30.5 (IQR, 28; 33) and 29.5 (IQR, 27; 35) breaths/min in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change of -10 (IQR, -12; -8) with high-flow nasal oxygen and -7 (IQR, -11; -5) breaths/min with NIV [estimated difference -2.6 breaths/min (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.5-5.7), P  = 0.052] at 60 min. There was a median SpO 2 of 95 (IQR, 92; 97) and 96 (IQR, 93; 97) in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change at 60 min of 2 (IQR, 0; 5) with high-flow nasal oxygen and 2 (IQR, -1; 5) % with NIV [estimated difference 0.8% (95% CI, -1.1-2.8), P  = 0.60]. PaO 2 , PaCO 2 and pH did not differ at 1 h between groups, nor did treatment failure, intubation and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in changes in respiratory rate among patients with acute respiratory failure due to AHF and managed with high-flow oxygen or NIV. However, the point estimate and its large confidence interval may suggest a benefit of high-flow oxygen.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04971213 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ).

Noninvasive Ventilation in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Over the last several decades, the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has seen an increase in the complexity of the patient population and etiologies requiring CICU admission. Currently, respiratory failure is the most common reason for admission to the contemporary CICU. As a result, noninvasive ventilation (NIV), including noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula, has been increasingly utilized in the management of patients admitted to the CICU. In this review, we detail the different NIV modalities and summarize the evidence supporting their use in conditions frequently encountered in the CICU. We describe the unique pathophysiologic interactions between positive pressure ventilation and left and/or right ventricular dysfunction. Additionally, we discuss the evidence and strategies for utilization of NIV as a method to reduce extubation failure in patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation. Lastly, we examine unique considerations for managing respiratory failure in certain, high-risk patient populations such as those with right ventricular failure, severe valvular disease, and adult congenital heart disease. Overall, it is critical for clinicians who practice in the CICU to be experts with the application, risks, benefits, and modalities of NIV in cardiac patients with respiratory failure.

Clinical and Personal Predictors of Helmet-CPAP Use and Failure in Patients Firstly Admitted to Regular Medical Wards with COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (hCPAP-f Study)

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 is substantially different from ARDS caused by other diseases and its treatment is dissimilar and challenging. As many studies showed conflicting results regarding the use of Non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19-associated ARDS, no unquestionable indications by operational guidelines were reported. The aim of this study was to estimate the use and success rate of Helmet (h) Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) in COVID-19-associated ARDS in medical regular wards patients and describe the predictive risk factors for its use and failure. In our monocentric retrospective observational study, we included patients admitted for COVID-19 in medical regular wards. hCPAP was delivered when supplemental conventional or high-flow nasal oxygen failed to achieve respiratory targets. The primary outcomes were hCPAP use and failure rate (including the need to use Bilevel (BL) PAP or oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and death during ventilation). The secondary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death and OTI. We computed a score derived from the factors independently associated with hCPAP failure. Out of 701 patients admitted with COVID-19 symptoms, 295 were diagnosed with ARDS caused by COVID-19 and treated with hCPAP. Factors associated with the need for hCPAP use were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 270, IL-6 serum levels over 46 pg/mL, AST > 33 U/L, and LDH > 570 U/L; age > 78 years and neuropsychiatric conditions were associated with lower use of hCPAP. Failure of hCPAP occurred in 125 patients and was associated with male sex, polypharmacotherapy (at least three medications), platelet count < 180 × 109/L, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 240. The computed hCPAP-f Score, ranging from 0 to 11.5 points, had an AUC of 0.74 in predicting hCPAP failure (significantly superior to Call Score), and 0.73 for the secondary outcome (non-inferior to IL-6 serum levels). In conclusion, hCPAP was widely used in patients with COVID-19 symptoms admitted to medical regular wards and developing ARDS, with a low OTI rate. A score computed combining male sex, multi-pharmacotherapy, low platelet count, and low PaO2/FiO2 was able to predict hCPAP failure in hospitalized patients with ARDS caused by COVID-19.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive respiratory support devices may reduce the tracheal intubation rate compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). To date, few studies have compared high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of three respiratory support devices in patients with acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥ 16 years with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and randomized-controlled trials that compared two different oxygenation devices (COT, NPPV, or HFNC) before tracheal intubation were included. A frequentist-based approach with a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The network meta-analysis was performed using the GRADE Working Group approach. The outcomes were short-term mortality and intubation rate.

RESULTS

Among 5507 records, 27 studies (4618 patients) were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Compared with COT, NPPV and HFNC use tended to reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.88 and 0.93, respectively; 95% confidence intervals, 0.76-1.01 and 0.80-1.08, respectively; both low certainty) and lower the risk of endotracheal intubation (0.81 and 0.78; 0.72-0.91 and 0.68-0.89, respectively; both low certainty); however, short-term mortality or intubation rates did not differ (0.94 and 1.04, respectively; 0.78-1.15 and 0.88-1.22, respectively; both low certainty) between NPPV and HFNC use.

CONCLUSION

NPPV and HFNC use are associated with a decreased risk of endotracheal intubation; however, there are no significant differences in short-term mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139105 , 01/21/2020).

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), which can be applied without endotracheal airway or tracheostomy, has been used as the first-line device for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Positive airway pressure (PAP) devices include continuous PAP, bilevel PAP, and adaptive servoventilation. NIPPV can provide favorable physiologic benefits, including improving oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, and pulmonary and systemic hemodynamics. It can also reduce the intubation rate and improve clinical symptoms, resulting in good quality of life and mortality.

Acute respiratory failure in randomized trials of noninvasive respiratory support: A systematic review of definitions, patient characteristics, and criteria for intubation

PURPOSE

To examine the definitions of acute respiratory failure, the characteristics of recruited patients, and the criteria for intubation used in randomized trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for randomized trials of noninvasive respiratory support modalities in patients with de novo respiratory failure. We included trials from 1995 to 2017 that enrolled 40 or more patients and used intubation as an outcome.

RESULTS

We examined the reports of 53 trials that enrolled 7225 patients. There was wide variation in the use of variables for defining acute respiratory failure. Dyspnea was rarely measured and the increase in breathing effort was poorly defined. The characteristics of patients enrolled in trials changed over time and differed by the cause of respiratory failure. Intubation was poorly characterized. The criteria for intubation had more variables than the criteria for respiratory failure.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified deficiencies in the design and reporting of randomized trials, some of which can be remedied by investigators. We also found that patient characteristics differ by the type of respiratory failure. This knowledge can help clinician identify patients at the right moment to benefit from the tested interventions and investigators in developing criteria for enrollment in future trials.

Non-Invasive Ventilatory Support In the Elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The first description of non-invasive ventilation use began in the 1920s. Since then, its role in patient care has evolved through increased clinical knowledge and scientific advancements. The utilization of non-invasive ventilation has broadened from initial application in acute in-hospital ICU settings to now include the outpatient settings. This review discusses the history of non-invasive ventilation and its role in acute in-hospital chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and weaning from mechanical ventilation in the elderly. The elderly population represents a significant portion of patients hospitalized for the aforementioned conditions. These groups often have more limitations related to the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), therefore, it is essential to understand the impact of non-invasive ventilation on hospital outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is strong clinical evidence supporting the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with respiratory failure secondary to acute COPD exacerbations and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. When compared to standard medical management of these conditions, there is a consistent and significant reduction in the rate of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality.

SUMMARY

The basis of noninvasive ventilation applicability has been determined by significant reduction in mortality and intubation rates. Although survival benefits have been observed, there still remain limitations to the clinical applicability of non-invasive ventilation in certain patient populations and conditions that require further investigation.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I² = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I² = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.

A musical intervention for respiratory comfort during noninvasive ventilation in the ICU

Discomfort associated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may participate in its failure. We aimed to determine the effect of a musical intervention on respiratory discomfort during NIV in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

An open-label, controlled trial was performed over three centres. Patients requiring NIV for ARF were randomised to either a musical intervention group (where they received a musical intervention and were subjected to visual deprivation during the first 30 min of each NIV session), a sensory deprivation group (where they wore insulating headphones and were subjected to visual deprivation during the first 30 min of each NIV session), or a control group (where they received NIV as routinely performed). The primary outcome was the change in respiratory discomfort before and after 30 min of the first NIV session.

A total of 113 patients were randomised (36 in the musical intervention group, 38 in the sensory deprivation group and 39 in the control group). Median (interquartile range (IQR)) change in respiratory discomfort was 0 (−1; 1) between the musical intervention and control groups (p=0.7). Between groups comparison did not evidence any significant variation of respiratory parameters across time or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at day-90. The Peri-traumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) at intensive care unit (ICU) discharge was reduced in musical intervention group patients. However, a 30 min musical intervention did not reduce respiratory discomfort during NIV for ARF in comparison to conventional care or sensory deprivation.

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.

Effect of a musical intervention on tolerance and efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in the ICU: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (MUSique pour l'Insuffisance Respiratoire Aigue - Mus-IRA)

Background

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) tolerance is a key factor of NIV success. Hence, numerous sedative pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies have been assessed to improve NIV tolerance. Music therapy in various health care settings has shown beneficial effects. In invasively ventilated critical care patients, encouraging results of music therapy on physiological parameters, anxiety, and agitation have been reported. We hypothesize that a musical intervention improves NIV tolerance in comparison to conventional care. We therefore question the potential benefit of a receptive music session administered to patients by trained caregivers (“musical intervention”) to enhance acceptance and tolerance of NIV.

Methods/design

We conduct a prospective, three-center, open-label, three-arm randomized trial involving patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who require NIV, as assessed by the treating physician. Participants are allocated to a “musical intervention” arm (“musical intervention” applied during all NIV sessions), to a “sensory deprivation” arm (sight and hearing isolation during all NIV sessions), or to the control group. The primary endpoint is the change in respiratory comfort (measured with a digital visual scale) before the initiation and after 30 minutes of the first NIV session. The evaluation of the primary endpoint is performed blindly from the treatment group. Secondary endpoints include changes in respiratory and cardiovascular parameters during NIV sessions, the percentage of patients requiring endotracheal intubation, day-90 anxiety/depression and health-related quality of life, post-trauma stress induced by NIV, and the overall assessment of NIV.

The follow-up for each participant is 90 days. We expect to randomize a total of 99 participants.

Discussion

As music intervention is a simple and easy-to-implement non-pharmacological technique, efficacious in reducing anxiety in critically ill patients, it appeared logical to assess its efficacy in NIV, one of the most stressful techniques used in the ICU. Patient centeredness was crucial in choosing the outcomes assessed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02265458. Registered on 25 August 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1574-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acidemia in severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema treated with noninvasive pressure support ventilation: a single-center experience

In clinical practice, acidotic patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) are commonly considered more severe in comparison with nonacidotic patients, and data on the outcome of these patients treated with noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIV) are lacking.The present investigation was aimed at assessing whether acidosis on admission (pH < 7.35) was associated with adverse outcome in 65 consecutive patients with ACPE treated with NIV and admitted to our Intensive Cardiac Care Unit (ICCU).In our population, 28 patients were acidotic (28 of 65, 43.1%), whereas 41 patients were not (37 of 65, 56.9%). According to the Repeated Measures General Linear Model, pCO2 values significantly changed throughout the 2-h NIV treatment (P = 0.019) in both groups (P = 0001). In acidotic patients, pCO2 significantly decreased (51.9 ± 15.3 → 47.0 ± 12.8 → 44.8 ± 12.7), whereas they increased in the nonacidotic subgroup (36.8 ± 6.5 → 36.9 ± 7.2 → 37.6 ± 6.4). No difference was observed in intubation rate between acidotic (eight patients, 28.6%) and nonacidotic patients (12 patients, 32.4%) (P = 0.738). In-ICCU mortality rate did not differ between (13 patients, 35.1%) and nonacidotic patients (nine patients, 32.1%) (P = 0.801).Our data strongly suggest that in patients with severe ACPE treated with NIV, the presence of acidosis is not associated with adverse outcomes (early mortality and intubation rates) in these patients.

The Role of Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients with "Do Not Intubate" Order in the Emergency Setting

Background

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is being used increasingly in patients who have a “do not intubate” (DNI) order. However, the impact of NIV on the clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the emergency setting is not known, nor is its effectiveness for relieving symptoms in end-of-life care.

Objective

The aim of this prospective study was to determine the outcome and HRQOL impact of regular use of NIV outcomes on patients with a DNI order who were admitted to the emergency room department (ED). Methods: Eligible for participation were DNI-status patients who receive NIV for acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure when admitted to the ED of a tertiary care, university-affiliated, 600-bed hospital between January 2014 and December 2014. Patients were divided into 2 groups: (1) those whose DNI order related to a decision to withhold therapy and (2) those for whom any treatment, including NIV, was provided for symptom relief only. HRQOL was evaluated only in group 1, using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Long-term outcome was evaluated 90 days after hospital discharge by means of a telephone interview.

Results

During the study period 1727 patients were admitted to the ED, 243 were submitted to NIV and 70 (29%) were included in the study. Twenty-nine (41%) of the 70 enrollees received NIV for symptom relief only (group2). Active cancer [7% vs 35%, p = 0,004] and neuromuscular diseases [0% vs. 17%] were more prevalent in this group. NIV was stopped in 59% of the patients in group 2 due to lake of clinical benefit. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37% for group 1 and 86% for group 2 0,001). Among patients who were discharged from hospital, 23% of the group 1 and all patients in group 2 died within 90 days. Relative to baseline, no significant decline in HRQOL occurred in group 1 by 90 days postdischarge.

Conclusion

The survival rate was 49% among DNI-status patients for whom NIV was used as a treatment in ED, and these patients did not experience a decline in HRQOL throughout the study. NIV did not provide significant relief of symptoms in more than half the patients who receive it for that purpose.

Changing use of noninvasive ventilation in critically ill patients: trends over 15 years in francophone countries

PURPOSE

Over the last two decades, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been proposed in various causes of acute respiratory failure (ARF) but some indications are debated. Current trends in NIV use are unknown.

METHODS

Comparison of three multicenter prospective audits including all patients receiving mechanical ventilation and conducted in 1997, 2002, and 2011 in francophone countries.

RESULTS

Among the 4132 patients enrolled, 2094 (51%) required ventilatory support for ARF and 2038 (49 %) for non-respiratory conditions. Overall NIV use was markedly increased in 2010/11 compared to 1997 and 2002 (37% of mechanically ventilated patients vs. 16% and 28%, P < 0.05). In 2010/11, the use of first-line NIV for ARF had reached a plateau (24% vs. 16% and 23%, P < 0.05) whereas pre-ICU and post-extubation NIV had substantially increased (11% vs. 4% and 11% vs. 7%, respectively, P < 0.05). First-line NIV remained stable in acute-on-chronic RF, continued to increase in cardiogenic pulmonary edema, but decreased in de novo ARF (16% in 2010/11 vs. 23% in 2002, P < 0.05). The NIV success rate increased from 56% in 2002 to 70% in 2010/11 and remained the lowest in de novo ARF. NIV failure in de novo ARF was associated with increased mortality in 2002 but not in 2010/11. Mortality decreased over time, and overall, NIV use was associated with a lower mortality.

CONCLUSION

Increases in NIV use and success rate, an overall decrease in mortality, and a decrease of the adverse impact NIV failure has in de novo ARF suggest better patient selection and greater proficiency of staff in administering NIV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01449331.

Severe but not mild hypercapnia affects the outcome in patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema treated by non-invasive ventilation

Background

Patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) are frequently hypercapnic, possibly because of associated underlying chronic lung disease (CLD). Since hypercapnia has been associated with outcome, we aimed to identify factors associated to hypercapnia and its role on outcome of patients with CPE and no underlying CLD.

Methods

Observational cohort study using data prospectively collected over a 3-year period. After excluding patients with any CLD or obstructive sleep apneas, all patients treated by non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for severe CPE were included. Hypercapnia was defined as PaCO₂ >45 mmHg and non-rapid favorable outcome was defined as the need for intubation or continuation of NIV for more than 48 h.

Results

After excluding 60 patients with underlying CLD or sleep apneas, 112 patients were studied. The rates of intubation and of prolonged NIV were 6.3 % (n = 7) and 21.4 % (n = 24), respectively. Half of the patients (n = 56) had hypercapnia upon admission. Hypercapnic patients were older, more frequently obese, and were more likely to have a respiratory tract infection than non-hypercapnic patients. Hypercapnia had no influence on intubation rate or the need for prolonged NIV. However, patients with severe hypercapnia (PaCO₂ >60 mmHg) needed longer durations of NIV and intensive care unit (ICU) stay than the others.

Conclusions

Among the patients admitted for severe CPE without CLD, half of them had hypercapnia at admission. Hypercapnic patients were older and more frequently obese but their outcome was similar compared to non-hypercapnic patients. Patients with severe hypercapnia needed longer durations of NIV than the others without increase in intubation rate.

Evaluation of efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in Non-COPD and non-trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been widely supported in the past two decades as an effective application in avoiding the need for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and reducing associated mortality in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) patients. However, the efficacy of NIV in AHRF patients, non-related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and trauma is still controversial in the field of medical research. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NIV as an adjunctive therapy in non-COPD and non-traumatic AHRF patients. Data of 11 randomized control trials (RCTs), which were conducted between 1990 and 2010 to determine the efficacy of NIV in non-COPD and non-traumatic AHRF patients, were reviewed from the PUBMED, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases. Parameters monitored in this study included the ETI rate, fatal complications, mortality rate of patients, and their ICU and hospital duration of stay. Overall results showed a statistically significant decrease in the rate of ETI, mortality, and fatal complications along with reduced ICU and hospital length of stay in non-COPD and non-trauma AHRF patients of various etiologies. This systematic review suggests that non-COPD and non-trauma AHRF patients can potentially benefit from NIV as compared with conventional treatment methods. Observations from various cohort studies, observational studies, and previously published literature advocate on the efficacy of NIV for treating non-COPD and non-traumatic AHRF patients. However, considering the diversity of studied populations, further studies and more specific trials on less heterogeneous AHRF patient groups are needed to focus on this aspect.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure

After the institution of positive-pressure ventilation, the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) through an interface substantially increased. The first technique was continuous positive airway pressure; but, after the introduction of pressure support ventilation at the end of the 20th century, this became the main modality. Both techniques, and some others that have been recently introduced and which integrate some technological innovations, have extensively demonstrated a faster improvement of acute respiratory failure in different patient populations, avoiding endotracheal intubation and facilitating the release of conventional invasive mechanical ventilation. In acute settings, NIV is currently the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation as well as for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema and should be considered in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory insufficiency, in difficult weaning, and in the prevention of postextubation failure. Alternatively, it can also be used in the postoperative period and in cases of pneumonia and asthma or as a palliative treatment. NIV is currently used in a wide range of acute settings, such as critical care and emergency departments, hospital wards, palliative or pediatric units, and in pre-hospital care. It is also used as a home care therapy in patients with chronic pulmonary or sleep disorders. The appropriate selection of patients and the adaptation to the technique are the keys to success. This review essentially analyzes the evidence of benefits of NIV in different populations with acute respiratory failure and describes the main modalities, new devices, and some practical aspects of the use of this technique.

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure: trends in use and outcomes

PURPOSE

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) had proven benefits in clinical trials that included selected patients admitted to highly skilled centers. Whether these benefits apply to every patient and in everyday practice deserves appraisal. The aim of the study was to assess the use and outcomes of NIV over the last 15 years.

METHODS

Multicenter database study of critically ill patients who required ventilatory support for acute respiratory failure between 1997 and 2011. The impact of first-line NIV on 60-day mortality was evaluated using a marginal structural model. Follow-up was censored on day 60.

RESULTS

Of 3,163 patients, 1,232 (39 %) received NIV. Over the study period, first-line NIV increased from 29 to 42 %, and NIV success rates increased from 69 to 84 %. NIV decreased 60-day mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.75; 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI), 0.68-0.83; P < 0.0001]. This protective effect was observed in patients with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure (aHR, 0.71; 95 % CI, 0.57-0.90; P = 0.004), but not in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (aHR, 0.85; 95 % CI, 0.70-1.03; P = 0.10) or in patients with hypoxemic ARF, either immunocompetent (aHR, 1.18; 95 % CI, 0.87-1.59; P = 0.30) or immunocompromised (aHR, 0.89; 95 % CI, 0.70-1.13; P = 0.35). NIV failure was an independent time-dependent risk factor for mortality (aHR, 4.2; 95 % CI, 2.8-6.2; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of NIV increased steadily over the study period. First-line NIV was associated with better 60-day survival and fewer ICU-acquired infections compared to first-line intubation. Survival benefits from NIV occurred only in patients with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure and immunocompromised patients.

Effect of out-of-hospital noninvasive positive-pressure support ventilation in adult patients with severe respiratory distress: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is increasingly being used by emergency medical services (EMS) for treatment of patients in respiratory distress. The primary objective of this systematic review is to determine whether out-of-hospital NIPPV for treatment of adults with severe respiratory distress reduces inhospital mortality compared with "standard" therapy. Secondary objectives are to examine the need for invasive ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay, and complications.

METHODS

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were conducted and reference lists of relevant articles hand searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing out-of-hospital NIPPV with standard therapy in adults (aged ≥16 years) with severe respiratory distress published in English were included. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. Data were pooled with random-effects models and reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and number needed to treat (NNT).

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials were included, with a combined total of 632 patients; 313 in the standard therapy group and 319 in the NIPPV group. In patients treated with NIPPV, the pooled estimate showed a reduction in both inhospital mortality (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; NNT=18) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58; NNT=8). There was no difference in ICU or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-hospital administration of NIPPV appears to be an effective therapy for adult patients with severe respiratory distress.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) may not reduce short-term mortality in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a propensity-based analysis

INTRODUCTION

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) improves patients' condition in case of cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE). However, the impact of CPAP on short-term mortality remains a matter of debate. We aimed at estimating the effect of CPAP on short-term mortality in patients treated for a CPE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We pooled the data from the Acute Heart Failure Global Registry of Standard Treatment and the Etude Francaise l'Innsuficiens Cardiaque Aigue observational cohorts to compare the estimations of the effect on short-term mortality of CPAP, before and after propensity score (PS) matching. A total of 2286 patients with a cardiogenic pulmonary edema were included in the analysis, of whom 321 (14%) received CPAP. Of these, 314 could be matched to a control patient (matched population: n = 628) and were included in the PS analysis. In naive analysis, CPAP application influenced neither short-term mortality (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.73-1.46; P = .86) nor the need for tracheal intubation (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.78-1.40; P = .78). After PS matching, CPAP was associated with a reduction in the need for tracheal intubation (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.84; P = .005) but it did not reduce short-term mortality (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.47-1.26; P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a reduction in the need for tracheal intubation, CPAP application may not reduce short-term mortality in patients suffering from cardiogenic pulmonary edema.

Randomized trial of bilevel versus continuous positive airway pressure for acute pulmonary edema

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown different clinical outcomes of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) from those of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) more rapidly improves dyspnea, ventilation, and acidemia without increasing the myocardial infarction (MI) rate compared to continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPAP) in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (APE).

METHODS

Patients with APE were randomized to either BPAP or CPAP. Vital signs and dyspnea scores were recorded at baseline, 30 min, 1 h, and 3 h. Blood gases were obtained at baseline, 30 min, and 1 h. Patients were monitored for MI, endotracheal intubation (ETI), lengths of stay (LOS), and hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients received CPAP and 13 received BPAP. The two groups were similar at baseline (ejection fraction, dyspnea, vital signs, acidemia/oxygenation) and received similar medical treatment. At 30 min, PaO2:FIO2 was improved in the BPAP group compared to baseline (283 vs. 132, p < 0.05) and the CPAP group (283 vs. 189, p < 0.05). Thirty-minute dyspnea scores were lower in the BPAP group compared to the CPAP group (p = 0.05). Fewer BPAP patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission (38% vs. 92%, p < 0.05). There were no differences between groups in MI or ETI rate, LOS, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CPAP to treat APE, BPAP more rapidly improves oxygenation and dyspnea scores, and reduces the need for ICU admission. Further, BPAP does not increase MI rate compared to CPAP.

The impact of prehospital continuous positive airway pressure on the rate of intubation and mortality from acute out-of-hospital respiratory emergencies

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated decreased rates of intubation and mortality with prehospital use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We sought to validate these findings in a larger observational study.

METHODS

We conducted a before and after observational study of consecutive patients transported by emergency medical services (EMS) during the 12 months before and the 12 months following implementation of a prehospital CPAP protocol for acute respiratory distress. Included were all patients transported by EMS meeting preestablished criteria indicative of acute respiratory distress and CPAP use (patient's problem specified as cardiac, respiratory distress, respiratory disease, or congestive heart failure [CHF]; age ≥ 12 years; chest sounds documented as wheezes or rales; Glascow Coma Scale [GCS] ≥ 11; respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths per minute; systolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg; and oxygen saturation < 90%). Data were abstracted from ambulance call reports (ACRs) and hospital records. All cases in which "do not resuscitate" (DNR) was documented on the patient chart or ACR or whose in-hospital outcome (death or discharge) was unknown were excluded.

RESULTS

In all, 442 patients met the above criteria. The mean (SD) age was 73.0 (13.9) years, and 51.5% were women. In-hospital mortality rates did not differ for these patients: 17/228 (7.5%) in the before group and 17/214 (7.9%) in the after group (p = 0.85). In-hospital intubation rates were similar for both groups (12.7 vs. 14.5%, p = 0.59). An analysis of the subgroup that had a hospital diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), CHF, or pulmonary edema (n = 273) showed mortality was somewhat lower in the before group (3/138, 2.2%) than in the after group (8/135, 5.9%) (p = 0.13). In-hospital intubation rates were also similar for both groups in this subgroup analysis (11.6 vs. 9.6%, p = 0.61).

CONCLUSION

In contrast to previous studies, we were unable to demonstrate a decrease in intubation or mortality related to the use of prehospital CPAP. Our findings may be specific to our EMS system but suggest that further large-scale, randomized, controlled trials may be warranted to firmly establish the benefit of prehospital CPAP.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a systematic review previously published in 2008 about non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). NPPV has been widely used to alleviate signs and symptoms of respiratory distress due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. NPPV prevents alveolar collapse and helps redistribute intra-alveolar fluid, improving pulmonary compliance and reducing the pressure of breathing.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of NPPV in the treatment of adult patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in its acute stage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 20 April 2011: CENTRAL and DARE, (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 of 4, 2011); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1950 to April 2011); EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to April 2011); CINAHL (1982 to April 2011); and LILACS (1982 to April 2011). We also reviewed reference lists of included studies and contacted experts and equipment manufacturers. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected blinded or unblinded randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, reporting on adult patients with acute or acute-on-chronic cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and where NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care was compared with standard medical care alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected articles and abstracted data using a standardised data collection form. We evaluated study quality with emphasis on allocation concealment, sequence generation allocation, losses to follow-up, outcome assessors, selective outcome reporting and adherence to the intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (2916 participants), of generally low or uncertain risk of bias. Compared with standard medical care, NPPV significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89) and endotracheal intubation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75). We found no difference in hospital length of stay with NPPV; however, intensive care unit stay was reduced by 1 day (WMD -0.89 days, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.45). Compared with standard medical care, we did not observe significant increases in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction with NPPV during its application (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.95) or after (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.26). We identified fewer adverse events with NPPV use (in particular progressive respiratory distress and neurological failure (coma)) when compared with standard medical care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NPPV in addition to standard medical care is an effective and safe intervention for the treatment of adult patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The evidence to date on the potential benefit of NPPV in reducing mortality is entirely derived from small-trials and further large-scale trials are needed.

Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common problem encountered by emergency medical services and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an integral part of the hospital treatment of acute ARF, predominantly because of congestive heart failure. Intuitively, better patient outcomes may be achieved when CPAP is applied early in the prehospital setting, but there are few outcome studies to validate its use in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effectiveness of CPAP in the prehospital setting for patients with ARF.

METHODS

A literature review of bibliographic databases and secondary sources was conducted and potential papers were assessed by two independent reviewers. Included studies were those that compared CPAP therapy (and usual care) with no CPAP for ARF in the prehospital setting. Studies of other methods of noninvasive ventilation were not included. Methodologic quality was assessed using guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. Outcomes included the number of intubations, mortality, physiologic parameters, and dyspnea score. Forrest plots were constructed to estimate the pooled effect of CPAP on outcomes.

RESULTS

Five studies (1,002 patients) met the selection criteria--three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a nonrandomized comparative study, and a retrospective comparative study using chart review. Forty-seven percent of the patients were allocated to the CPAP group. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The pooled estimates demonstrated significantly fewer intubations (odds ratio [OR] 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.51) and lower mortality (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19-0.87) in the CPAP group.

CONCLUSION

The studies included in this review showed a reduction in the number of intubations and mortality in patients with ARF who received CPAP in the prehospital setting. The results may not be applicable to other health care contexts because of the inherent differences in the organization and staffing of the EMS systems. Information from large RCTs on the efficacy of CPAP initiated early in the prehospital setting is critical to establishing the evidence base underpinning this therapy before ambulance services incorporate CPAP as routine clinical practice.

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with conventional therapy improves the outcome of patients with acute respiratory failure due to hypercapnic decompensation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). This review summarizes the main effects of NIV in these pathologies. In COPD, NIV improves gas exchange and symptoms, reducing the need for endotracheal intubation, hospital mortality and hospital stay compared with conventional oxygen therapy. NIV may also avoid reintubation and may decrease the length of invasive mechanical ventilation. In ACPE, NIV accelerates the remission of symptoms and the normalization of blood gas parameters, reduces the need for endotracheal intubation, and is associated with a trend towards lesser mortality, without increasing the incidence of myocardial infarction. The ventilation modality used in ACPE does not affect the patient prognosis.

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation: resource document for the National Association of EMS Physicians position statement

The National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) believes that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is an important treatment modality for the prehospital management of acute dyspnea. This document serves as a resource to the NAEMSP position on prehospital NIPPV.

CPAP for acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema from out-of-hospital to cardiac intensive care unit: a randomised multicentre study

PURPOSE

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a useful treatment for patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (CPE). However, its usefulness in the out-of-hospital setting has been poorly investigated and only by small and single-centre studies. We designed a multicentre randomised study to assess the benefit of CPAP initiated out of hospital.

METHODS

A total of 207 patients with CPE were randomly allocated by emergency mobile medical units to receive either standard treatment alone or standard treatment plus CPAP. CPAP was maintained after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Inclusion criteria were orthopnoea, respiratory rate greater than 25 breaths/min, pulse oximetry less than 90% in room air and diffuse crackles. The primary end point was assessed during the first 48 h and combined: death, presence of intubation criteria, persistence of either all inclusion criteria or circulatory failure at the second hour or their reappearance before 48 h. Absence of all criteria defined successful treatment.

RESULTS

CPAP was used for 60 min [40, 65] (median [Q1, Q3]) in the pre-hospital setting and 120 min [60, 242] in ICU and was well tolerated in all patients. Treatment was successful in 79% of patients in the CPAP group and 63% in the control group (p = 0.01), especially for persistence of inclusion criteria after 2 h (12 vs. 26%) and for intubation criteria (4 vs. 14%). CPAP was beneficial irrespective of the initial PaCO(2) or left ventricular ejection fraction.

CONCLUSION

Immediate use of CPAP in out-of-hospital treatment of CPE and until CPE resolves after admission significantly improves early outcome compared with medical treatment alone.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The evidence of individual studies in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) supporting noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is still inconclusive, particularly regarding noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).

METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis. We searched in the Embase, Medline, Cinahl, Dare, Coch, Central, and CNKI databases and congress abstracts for trials comparing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or NIPPV with standard therapy (ST). To assess treatment effects, we carried out direct comparison using a random effects model and adjusted indirect comparison.

RESULTS

At total of 34 studies (3,041 patients) were included. In direct comparisons, both CPAP and NIPPV reduced the risk of death (relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.93; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58-1.10; respectively) compared with ST, although only CPAP had a significant effect. There were no significant differences between NIPPV and CPAP. Pooled results of direct and adjusted indirect comparisons showed that compared with ST, both CPAP and NIPPV significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.89; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that among ACPE patients, NIV delivered through either NIPPV or CPAP reduced mortality.

The role of continuous positive airway pressure in acute cardiogenic edema with preserved left ventricular systolic function

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) with preserved or impaired left ventricular systolic function with regard to resolution time.

METHODS

In a prospective, preliminary observational cohort study, 18 patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function (group A) and 18 patients with systolic heart dysfunction (group B) with ACPE underwent CPAP (10 cmH(2)0) through a face mask with standard medical therapy after a morphologic echocardiographic investigation shortly before CPAP.

RESULTS

Resolution time did not differ significantly between the 2 groups of patients (64 +/- 25 minutes in diastolic group vs 80 +/- 33 minutes in systolic group). One patient in preserved left ventricular systolic function group required endotracheal intubation (not statistically significant). No patient died during hospital stay. Arterial blood gases improved after a trial of CPAP in both groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this preliminary study show that resolution time is not significantly different in patients with ACPE with preserved or impaired systolic function submitted to CPAP.

Continuous positive airway pressure vs. pressure support ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Both non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and non-invasive pressure support ventilation (nPSV) have been shown to be effective treatment for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). In patients with severe ACPE who are treated with standard medical treatment, the baseline intubation rate is approximately 24%.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate using two techniques, nCPAP vs. nPSV. In addition, mortality rate, improvement in gas exchange, duration of ventilation, and hospital length of stay were also assessed.

METHODS

This prospective, multi-center, randomized study enrolled 80 patients with ACPE who were randomized to receive nCPAP or nPSV (40 patients in each group) via an oronasal mask. Inclusion criteria were severe dyspnea, respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, use of respiratory accessory muscles, or PaO(2)/FiO(2) < 200.

RESULTS

ETI was required in 0 (0%) and in 3 (7.5%) patients in the nCPAP group and in the nPSV group, respectively (p = 0.241). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital mortality: 2 (5%) vs. 7 (17.5%) in nCPAP and nPSV groups, respectively (p = 0.154). No difference in hospital length of stay was observed between the two groups, nor was there a difference observed in duration of ventilation, despite a trend for reduced time with nPSV vs. nCPAP (5.91 ± 4.01 vs. 8.46 ± 7.14 h, respectively, p = 0.052). Both nCPAP and nPSV were effective in improving gas exchange, including in the subgroup of hypercapnic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Both methods are effective treatment for patients with ACPE. Non-invasive CPAP should be considered as the first line of treatment because it is easier to use and less expensive than non-invasive PSV.

Use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in the emergency department

To optimize the successful use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the emergency department (ED), clinicians must acquire the necessary knowledge, experience, and skill in its proper application. The purpose of this article is to provide a concise but thorough review of the current state of knowledge relating to the proper application of NPPV pertaining to its use in the ED.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with acute pulmonary edema are often treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). There are essentially two modalities used in this setting: continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel pressure support ventilation. The clinical impact of these techniques and the subset of patients who can benefit from their application have not been definitely established.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main advantage of the use of NIV in patients with severe acute pulmonary edema is to avoid intubation by more effectively decreasing respiratory distress with respect to conventional oxygen therapy. These beneficial effects were demonstrated in three meta-analyses including nearly 900 patients. Although neither technique was superior to the other in the comparative analysis, a tendency to reduce hospital mortality was observed, which was statistically significant for continuous positive airway pressure. However, unpublished data from a large multicenter trial comparing both modalities of NIV to conventional treatment in emergency departments did not confirm these results. Recent research has pointed out a clear advantage when the treatment is initiated early in the prehospital setting.

SUMMARY

Although in acute pulmonary edema NIV is more effective in improving respiratory distress than conventional oxygen therapy and reduces the necessity of intubation, the subset of patients who can best benefit from these techniques in terms of mortality still warrant further investigation.