Seiler C, Kristiansson L, Klingberg C, Sundh J, Braman Eriksson A, Lundeqvist D, Nilsson KF, Hårdstedt M. Swimming-Induced Pulmonary Edema: Evaluation of Prehospital Treatment With CPAP or Positive Expiratory Pressure Device.
Chest 2022;
162:410-420. [PMID:
35288117 PMCID:
PMC9424325 DOI:
10.1016/j.chest.2022.02.054]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Revised: 02/22/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Swimming-induced pulmonary edema (SIPE) occasionally occurs during swimming in cold open water. Although optimal treatment for SIPE is unknown, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is an option for prehospital treatment.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Is NPPV a feasible and safe prehospital treatment for SIPE, and which outcome measures reflect recovery after treatment?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A prospective observational study was conducted at Vansbrosimningen, Sweden's largest open water swimming event, from 2017 through 2019. Swimmers with a diagnosis of SIPE and with peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) of ≤ 95%, persistent respiratory symptoms, or both were eligible for the study. NPPV was administered on site as CPAP by facial mask or as positive expiratory pressure (PEP) by a PEP device. Discharge criteria were Spo2 of > 95% and clinical recovery. Four outcome measures were evaluated: Spo2, crackles on pulmonary auscultation, pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound (LUS), and patient-reported respiratory symptoms.
RESULTS
Of 119 treated individuals, 94 received CPAP, 24 received treatment with a PEP device, and one required tracheal intubation. In total, 108 individuals (91%) were discharged after NPPV for a median of 10 to 20 min and 11 individuals (9%) required hospital transfer. NPPV resulted in increased Spo2 from a median of 91% to 97% (P < .0001) together with improvement of six patient-reported respiratory symptoms (median numerical rating scales, 1-7 to 0-1; P < .0001). No significant decrease in auscultation of crackles (93% vs 87%; P = .508) or pulmonary edema on LUS (100% vs 97%; P = .500) was seen during NPPV treatment.
INTERPRETATION
NPPV administered as CPAP or via a PEP device proved feasible and safe as prehospital treatment for SIPE with a vast majority of patients discharged on site. Spo2 and patient-reported respiratory symptoms reflected recovery after treatment, whereas pulmonary auscultation or LUS findings did not.
Collapse