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

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.

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Is disposable continuous positive airway pressure system effective for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure?

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of disposable continuous positive airway pressure (DCPAP) system in decreasing the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) levels in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective observational study included patients treated in the emergency department (ED) with respiratory distress and PaCO2 > 45 mmHg. Patients were divided into two groups (DCPAP and non-DCPAP), depending on the treatment received to treat AHRF. The difference between the baseline PaCO2 levels in the first blood gas obtained from patients at the time of admission and the follow-up blood gas after treatment. Then, the calculated PaCO2 decrease was divided by the time elapsed to obtain the rate of decrease in PaCO2 levels in mmHg/min. The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 18.0 software. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included in the study, 31 patients in the DCPAP group and 30 patients in the non-DCPAP group. The mean age of the patients was 74.03 ± 10.04, and the male/female was 23/38. The study demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the DCPAP and non-DCPAP groups in terms of PaCO2 decreasing rate, and it was found to be twice higher in the DCPAP group (0.11 ± 0.07 mmHg/min) than in the non-DCPAP group (0.05 ± 0.06 mmHg/min).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that the treatment of AHRF patients with a DCPAP provides a faster decrease in PaCO2 levels in hypercapnic patients compared to standard medical therapy alone.

Noninvasive Ventilation and Oxygenation Strategies

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) provides respiratory support without the use of invasive ventilation with techniques that do not bypass the upper airway. NIV is particularly attractive given its associated reduced risk of complications associated with intubation. Available NIV modes include nasal cannula, simple mask, nonrebreather, high flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure. Acute exacerbation of COPD, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and COVID-19 are conditions for which NIV has shown to be beneficial, whereas there is no consensus among the use of NIV in trauma patients and ARDS.

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to etiologies other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. To systematically review the evidence regarding the effectiveness of BiPAP in non-COPD patients with AHRF. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus were searched according to prespecified criteria (PROSPERO-CRD42018089875). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of BiPAP versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), invasive mechanical ventilation, or O₂ therapy in adults with non-COPD AHRF were included. The primary outcomes of interest were the rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and mortality. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed, and data were synthesized and meta-analyzed where appropriate. Two thousand four hundred and eighty-five records were identified after removing duplicates. Eighty-eight articles were identified for full-text assessment, of which 82 articles were excluded. Six studies, of generally low or uncertain risk-of-bias, were included involving 320 participants with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPO) and solid tumors. No significant differences were seen between BiPAP ventilation and CPAP with regard to the rate of progression to ETI (risk ratio [RR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-3.62, P = 0.37) and in-hospital mortality rate (RR = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.25-1.99, P = 0.51) in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. The efficacy of BiPAP appears similar to CPAP in reducing the rates of ETI and mortality in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. Further research on other non-COPD conditions which commonly cause AHRF such as obesity hypoventilation syndrome is needed.

Non-invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Prehospital and Emergency Settings

Non-invasive ventilation is an important intervention in treating acute respiratory failure caused by acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) and acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although there are studies that give evidence on the efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation over standard medical care for COPD and cardiogenic pulmonary edema, less are known about the form of non-invasive ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) as an effective intervention for respiratory failure and its efficacy and safety in prehospital settings. We conducted a systematic review by using PubMed and Google Scholar as databases for collecting studies related to the effectiveness of CPAP and BiPAP for cardiogenic pulmonary edema and COPD; the major outcome studied was reducing rates of endotracheal intubation secondary and tertiary outcomes included mortality reduction and shortening length of hospital stay. The study follows the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist 2009. Sixteen studies were identified, including systematic reviews, randomized control trials, and observational studies. Studies published on or after 2010 in a population greater than 40 years old suffering from acute COPD and cardiogenic pulmonary edema were taken for review. Studies that described other respiratory diseases treated with non-invasive ventilation were excluded. Quality appraisal was done using the Cochrane risk bias tool for randomized control trials, Amstar-2 for systematic reviews, and New Castle Ottawa Tool for observational studies. Five studies compared the effectiveness of CPAP and BiPAP with standard medical care in prehospital and emergency settings. Six studies described prehospital intervention. Both forms of non-invasive ventilation were equally significant and effective. Prehospital use had tremendously reduced intubation rates, with not much variability noticed for mortality and hospital stay. Non-invasive ventilation is an effective measure for respiratory failure secondary to COPD and ACPE. Early out of hospital utilization of CPAP and BiPAP reduces the rate of invasive ventilation and reduces complications due to endotracheal intubation. Endotracheal intubation is associated with a considerable incidence of complications like failed intubation, hypotension, or circulatory arrest, even if the emergency physician is well trained, making these forms of non-invasive ventilation safe and effective interventions in the prehospital settings.

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.