Mechanical ventilation in patients with hypoxemia due to refractory heart failure

Comparison of clinical efficacy of metoprolol combined with irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide and non-invasive ventilator in the emergency treatment of patients with severe heart failure

Clinical efficacy of metoprolol combined with irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide and non-invasive ventilator in the emergency treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) was investigated. A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 124 patients with severe HF admitted to Binzhou Medical University Hospital from May 2012 to August 2016 was performed. Among them, 78 patients who were treated with metoprolol combined with irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide and non-invasive ventilator for emergency treatment were enrolled into the Research Group, while the Control Group consisted of 46 patients treated with routine medical treatment. Echocardiographic parameters, 6-minute walking test results, the efficacy of the emergency treatment, cardiac function grading, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels were compared between the two groups. After the emergency treatment, the echocardiographic indexes of both groups increased to different extents (P<0.05). Compared with the results before, patients of both groups walked longer within six minutes after the emergency treatment (P<0.05). After the emergency treatment, the BNP expression levels in the two groups decreased to different degrees (P<0.05). After a 7-day emergency treatment, the efficiency rate of treatment of the Research Group was higher than that of the Control Group (P<0.05). The method is helpful for the recovery of respiratory function, for relieving symptoms in short time, improving cardiac function and promising high safety, using metoprolol and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide combined with non-invasive ventilator had satisfactory clinical efficacy in the emergency treatment of patients with severe heart failure and is thus worthy of clinical promotion.

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.