Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: “Don't Think Twice, It's Alright!”

Home Noninvasive Ventilation in COPD

Evidence is increasing that long-term noninvasive ventilation (LTNIV) can improve outcomes in individuals with severe, hypercapnic COPD. Although the evidence remains unclear in some aspects, LTNIV seems to be able to improve patient-related and physiologic outcomes like dyspnea, FEV1 and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Pco2) and also to reduce rehospitalizations and mortality. Efficacy generally is associated with reduction in Pco2. To achieve this, an adequate interface (mask) is essential, as are appropriate ventilation settings that target the specific respiratory physiologic features of COPD. This will ensure comfort, synchrony, and adherence that will result in physiologic improvements. This article briefly reviews the newest evidence and current guidelines on LTNIV in severe COPD. It describes an actual patient who benefitted from the therapy. Finally, it provides strategies for initiating and optimizing this LTNIV in COPD, discussing high-pressure noninvasive ventilation, optimization of triggering, and control of inspiratory time. As demand increases, clinicians will need to be familiar with this therapy to reap its benefits, because inadequately adjusted LTNIV will not be tolerated or effective.

The Coexistence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic illness that is widely prevalent within the United States and has been frequently associated with heart failure (HF). COPD is associated with progressive damage and inflammation of the airways leading to airflow obstruction and inadequate gas exchange. HF represents a decline in the normal functioning of the heart resulting in insufficient pumping of blood through the circulatory system. COPD and HF present with similar signs and symptoms with some variation.

There are many specific diagnostic tests and treatment modalities which we use to diagnose COPD and HF, but it becomes an issue when you come across a patient who has both conditions simultaneously. For example, attempting to use an X-ray to diagnose HF in a COPD patient is next to impossible because the results are manipulated by the COPD disease process. This is the case with many other diagnostic tests such as an electrocardiogram (ECG), chest radiography (X-ray), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), echocardiogram, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), pulmonary function test (PFT), arterial blood gas (ABG), and exercise stress testing.

When a patient has both COPD and HF, it becomes more difficult to treat. Many treatments for HF have negative impacts on COPD patients and vice-versa, whereas some have also shown positive clinical outcomes in both diseases. It is agreeable that treatment has to be patient-centered and it can vary from case to case depending on the severity of the disease. Ultimately, in this review, we discuss COPD and HF and how they interplay in their diagnostic and treatment modalities to gain a better understanding of how to effectively manage patients who have been diagnosed with both conditions.

Acute non-invasive ventilation - getting it right on the acute medical take

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) given to the right patient, in the right setting, in the right way and at the right time improves outcomes. However, national audits reveal poor practice in patient selection, clinical judgement, treatment initiation and availability of trained staff. NIV is indicated for persistent acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) with acidosis after usual medical management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation and even without acidosis in neuromuscular disorders or other restrictive conditions eg obesity hypoventilation or kyphoscoliosis. Having trained staff in a suitable environment with adequate equipment are keys to its success, along with close monitoring. A plan should be put in place at the time of initiating NIV about the ceiling of care, eg escalation to intubation or palliation, if the patient is not improving with NIV. Early NIV failure is most likely due to technical issues, such as inadequate pressures or mask leak, while late failure is usually the consequence of advanced disease. Any presentation with AHRF is a poor prognostic indicator and outpatient respiratory follow-up is indicated following discharge. For selected patients with COPD who remain hypercapnic 2 weeks after an exacerbation, domiciliary NIV can reduce admissions and improve survival. For patients with neuromuscular disorders or kyphoscoliosis a presentation with AHRF almost always indicates the need for domiciliary NIV.

Successful Use of Noninvasive Ventilation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. How Do High-Performing Hospitals Do It?

RATIONALE

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a cornerstone of treatment for patients with severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), where it has been shown to reduce the need for intubation, hospital length of stay, and mortality. Despite high-quality evidence and strong recommendations in clinical guidelines, use of NIV varies widely across hospitals.

OBJECTIVES

To identify approaches used by hospitals that have been successful in implementing NIV to treat patients with severe exacerbations of COPD.

METHODS

Adopting a positive deviance approach, in-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders from a sample of high-performing hospitals selected from a large and representative network of 386 U.S. hospitals. High performers were defined as hospitals in which a high proportion of patients with COPD requiring mechanical ventilation were treated with NIV, and that also achieved low risk-adjusted mortality for all patients with COPD. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes and subthemes were identified through iterative readings of the transcripts and discussion until the team agreed that all important themes and subthemes had been identified. All transcripts were coded by three or four researchers. Differences in coding were discussed to negotiate consensus, resulting in a single agreed-on set of coded transcripts.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 32 participants from seven hospitals. Hospitals were diverse regarding size, teaching status, and geographic location. Participants included respiratory therapists (n = 15), physicians (n = 10), and nurses (n = 7). The qualitative analyses revealed three interrelated domains that characterized effective NIV use: processes, structural elements, and contextual factors. Several themes comprised each domain. Key processes included timely identification of appropriate patients, early initiation of NIV, frequent reassessment of patients, and attention to patient comfort. Necessary structural elements included adequate equipment, sufficient numbers of qualified respiratory therapists, and flexibility in staffing. Important contextual factors included provider buy-in, respiratory therapist autonomy, interdisciplinary teamwork, and staff education. Hospital leaders, policies, and protocols were identified as playing a supporting role in promoting essential elements.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified factors, such as respiratory therapist autonomy, that facilitated essential processes (e.g., timely initiation) of NIV use at high-performing hospitals. These findings may be useful to hospitals seeking to optimize their use of NIV among patients with COPD.

Update in Critical Care 2015

This review documents important progress made in 2015 in the field of critical care. Significant advances in 2015 included further evidence for early implementation of low tidal volume ventilation as well as new insights into the role of open lung biopsy, diaphragmatic dysfunction, and a potential mechanism for ventilator-induced fibroproliferation. New therapies, including a novel low-flow extracorporeal CO2 removal technique and mesenchymal stem cell-derived microparticles, have also been studied. Several studies examining the role of improved diagnosis and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia also showed relevant results. This review examines articles published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and other major journals that have made significant advances in the field of critical care in 2015.

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists on the comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) vs invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the use of NIV and IMV, and to compare the effectiveness of NIV vs IMV in AECOPD.

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

Retrospective cohort study using data from the 2006-2008 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Emergency department visits for AECOPD with acute respiratory failure were identified with codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification.

MEASURES

The outcome measures were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay, hospital charges, and complications.

RESULTS

There were an estimated 101,000 visits annually for AECOPD with acute respiratory failure; 96% were admitted to the hospital. Of these, NIV use increased from 14% in 2006 to 16% in 2008 (P=0.049). Use of NIV, however, varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 0% to 100% with a median of 11%. Noninvasive ventilation was more often used in higher-case volume, Northeastern hospitals. In a propensity score analysis, NIV use, compared with IMV, was associated with lower inpatient mortality (risk ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.59), shortened hospital length of stay (-3.2 days; 95% CI: -3.4 to -2.9 days), lower hospital charges (-$35,012; 95% CI: -$36,848 to -$33,176), and lower risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax (0.05% vs 0.5%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although NIV use is increasing in US hospitals, its adoption remains low and varies widely between hospitals. Our observational study suggests NIV appears to be more effective and safer than IMV for AECOPD in the real-world setting.