Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema

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.

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.

Bench-to-bedside review: Resuscitation in the emergency department

Over the past decade the practice of acute resuscitation and its monitoring have undergone significant changes. Utilization of noninvasive mechanical ventilation, goal-directed therapy, restricted fluid volume, blood transfusion and minimally invasive technology for monitoring tissue oxygenation have changed the practice of acute resuscitation. Early diagnosis and definitive treatment of the underlying cause of shock remains the mainstay for survival after successful resuscitation. Patient-centered outcome end-points, in addition to survival, are being utilized to appraise the effectiveness of treatment. Application of medical ethics to the ever changing practice of acute resuscitation has also become a societal expectation.

The use of noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure at a tertiary care center

OBJECTIVE

Financial constraints and bed limitations frequently prevent admission of ill patients to a critical care setting. We surveyed the use of treatment with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in clinical practice by physicians in a tertiary care, university-based teaching hospital and compared our findings with published recommendations for the use of NIV.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively on all patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) for whom NIV was ordered over a 5-month period. The respiratory therapy department was responsible for administering NIV on written order by a physician. The respiratory therapist completed a survey form with patient tracking data for each initiation of NIV. The investigators then surveyed the clinical chart for clinical data.

RESULTS

NIV was utilized for the treatment of ARF on 75 occasions during the 5-month period. Fourteen patients (18%) received NIV for a COPD exacerbation, and 61 patients (82%) received it for respiratory failure of other etiologies. NIV was initiated in the emergency department in 32% of patients, in a critical care setting in 27% of patients, in a ward observation unit in 23% of patients, and on a general medical or surgical ward in 18% of patients. Arterial blood gases (ABGs) were measured on 68 occasions prior to the initiation of NIV, and 51 patients had an ABG measurement within the first 6 h of treatment. The mean pH at baseline was 7.29, and 33% of patients had a baseline pH of < 7.25. Seven patients required endotracheal intubation (ETI) [13%], and there were 18 deaths (24%) with patients having do-not-resuscitate orders, accounting for 12 deaths.

CONCLUSION

NIV is commonly used outside of a critical care setting. Our outcomes of ETI and death were similar to those cited in the literature despite less aggressive monitoring of these patients.