Objective To explore the effects of enteral tube feeding on moderate AECOPD patients who underwent noninvasive positive pressure ventilation ( NPPV) . Methods Sixty moderate AECOPD patients with NPPV admitted from January 2009 to April 2011 were recruited for the study. They were randomly divided into an enteral tube feeding group (n=30) received enteral tube feeding therapy, and an oral feeding group (n=30) received oral feeding therapy. Everyday nutrition intake and accumulative total nutrition intake in 7 days, plasma level of prealbumin and transferrin, success rate of weaning, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, rate of trachea cannula, and mortality rate in 28 days were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with the oral feeding group, the everyday nutrition intake and accumulative total nutrition intake in 7 days obviously increased (Plt;0.05) , while the plasma prealbumin [ ( 258.4 ±16.5) mg/L vs. (146.7±21.6) mg/L] and transferrin [ ( 2.8 ±0.6) g/L vs. ( 1.7 ±0.3) g/L] also increased significantly after 7 days in the enteral tube feeding group( Plt;0.05) . The success rate of weaning ( 83.3% vs. 70.0%) , the duration of mechanical ventilation [ 5. 6( 3. 2-8. 6) days vs. 8. 4( 4. 1-12. 3) days] , the length of ICU stay [ 9. 2( 7. 4-11. 8) days vs. 13. 6( 8.3-17. 2) days] , the rate of trachea cannula ( 16. 6% vs. 30. 0% ) , the mortality rate in 28 days ( 3. 3% vs. 10. 0% ) all had significant differences between the enteral tube feeding group and the oral feeding group. Conclusions For moderate AECOPD patients with NPPV, enteral tube feeding can obviously improve the condition of nutrition and increase the success rate of weaning, shorten the mechanical ventilation time and the mean stay in ICU, decrease the rate of trachea cannula and mortality rate in 28 days. Thus enteral tube feeding should be preferred for moderate AECOPD patients with NPPV.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HNPPV) on patients with severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China. Methods Systematic literature search was performed in Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, WanFang Data, VIP Database, Chinese National knowledge Infrastructure databases from inception to January 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported comparison of the efficacy of HNPPV on patients with severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were included. All related data were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted using the statistical software RevMan 5.3 on the basis of strict quality evaluation. Results A total of 767 patients from 14 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that, compared with the control group, HNPPV could significantly reduce the mortality (relative risk 0.51, 95%CI 0.33 – 0.78, P=0.002) and PaCO2 ［weighted mean difference (MD) –10.78, 95%CI –13.17 – –8.39, P<0.000 01］ of patients, improve the levels of PaO2 (MD 7.84, 95%CI 5.81 – 9.87, P<0.000 01), FEV1 (MD 0.13, 95%CI 0.08 – 0.18, P<0.000 01), and the quality of life (MD –6.27, 95% CI –9.04 – –3.51, P<0.000 01). Conclusion HNPPV can reduce the mortality of patients, improve the gas exchange, pulmonary function and the quality of life, but more large sample, high-quality, and multicenter RCT studies are needed.
ObjectiveTo investigate the application value of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) performed in patients with unplanned extubation (UE) in intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis. The clinical data, application of NIV, reintubation rate and prognosis of UE patients in the ICU of this hospital from January 2014 to December 2018 were reviewed, and the patients were assigned to the control group or the NIV group according to the application of NIV after UE. The data between the two groups were compared and the application effects of NIV in UE patients were evaluated.ResultsA total of 66 UE patients were enrolled in this study, including 44 males and 22 females and with an average age of (64.2±16.1) years. Out of them, 41 patients (62.1%) used nasal catheter or mask for oxygenation as the control group, 25 patients (37.9%) used NIV as the NIV group. The Acute Physiology andChronic Health EvaluationⅡ score of the control group and the NIV group were (18.6±7.7) vs. (14.8±6.3), P=0.043. The causes of respiratory failure in the control group and the NIV group were as follows: pneumonia 16 patients (39.0%) vs. 7 patients (28.0%), postoperative respiratory failure 7 patients (17.1%) vs. 8 patients (32.0%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 8 patients (19.5%) vs. 6 patients (24.0%), others 5 patients (12.2%) vs. 4 patients (16.0%), heart failure 3 patients (7.3%) vs. 0 patients (0%), nervous system diseases 2 (4.9%) vs. 0 patients (0%), which showed no significant difference between the two groups. Mechanical ventilation time before UE were (12.5±19.8) vs (12.7±15.2) d (P=0.966), PaO2 of the control group and the NIV group before UE was (114.9±37.4) vs. (114.4±46.3)mm Hg (P=0.964), and oxygenation index was (267.1±82.0) vs. (257.4±80.0)mm Hg (P=0.614). Reintubation rate was 65.9% in the control group and 24.0% in the NIV group (P=0.001). The duration of mechanical ventilation was (23.9±26.0) vs. (21.8±26.0)d (P=0.754), the length of stay in ICU was (34.4±36.6) vs. (28.5±25.8)d (P=0.48). The total mortality rate in this study was 19.7%. The mortality rate in the control group and NIV group were 22.0% and 16.0% (P=0.555).ConclusionPatients with UE in ICU may consider using NIV to avoid reintubation.
ObjectiveTo assess the mortality, acute exacerbations, exercise capacity, symptoms and significant physiological parameters (lung function, respiratory muscle function and gas exchange) of patients with severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with respiratory failure treated by noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV).MethodsA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was carried out by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, OVID, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and the bibliographies of the retrieved articles up to February 2017. Studies of patients with severe stable COPD with respiratory failure receiving long-term noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and comparison with oxygen therapy were conducted, and at least one of the following parameters were reviewed: frequency of acute exacerbations, mortality, lung function, respiratory muscle function, gas exchange, 6-minute walk test.ResultsSix studies with 695 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The PaCO2 was significantly decreased in patients who received long-term NPPV. No significant difference was found between long-term NPPV and oxygen therapy in mortality, frequency of acute exacerbations, gas exchange, lung function, respiratory muscle function and exercise capacity. The subgroup analysis showed that NPPV improves survival of patients when it is targeted at greatly reducing hypercapnia.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that there is no significant improvement by application of NPPV on severe stable COPD with respiratory failure patients, but NPPV may reduce patients’ mortality with the aim of reducing hypercapnia.
Objective To determine the efficacy and prognosis of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods Trials were located through electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Springer, and Foreign Journals Integration System (from the start date to March 2008). We also checked the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Statistical analysis was performed with The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 4.2.10. Results A total of 19 trials involving 1 236 patients were included. Results showed that: (1) NPPV vs. conventional therapy: NPPV was superior to conventional therapy in terms of intubation rate (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.49), failure rate (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.90), and mortality (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the NPPV group compared with the conventional group (WMD – 3.83, 95%CI – 5.78 to – 1.89), but the length of ICU stay was similar. The changes of PaO2, PaCO2, and pH were much more obvious in the NPPV group compared with the conventional group. The change of respiratory rate was more significant in the NPPV group compared with the conventional group (WMD – 3.75, 95%CI – 5.48 to – 2.03). At discharge and follow-up, there were no significant differences in FEV1, pH, PaCO2, PaO2, and vital capacity between the two groups. (2) NPPV vs. invasive ventilation: the mortality was similar between the two groups. The incidence of complications was lower in the NPPV group compared with the invasive group (RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.73). The length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and weaning time were shorter in the NPPV group than those of the invasive group. At discharge and follow-up, clinical conditions were similar between the two groups. Conclusion The limited current evidence showed that NPPV was superior to conventional therapy in improving intubation rate, mortality, short term of blood-gas change, the change of respiratory rate; and superior to invasive ventilation in the length of hospital stay and the incidence of complication. There were no difference among them in discharge and follow-up.
Objective To evaluate the efficiency and associated factors of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation( NPPV) in the treatment of acute lung injury( ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome( ARDS) .Methods Twenty-eight patients who fulfilled the criteria for ALI/ARDS were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomized to receive either noninvasive positive pressure ventilation( NPPV group) or oxygen therapy through a Venturi mask( control group) . All patients were closely observed and evaluated during observation period in order to determine if the patients meet the preset intubation criteria and the associated risk factors. Results The success rate in avoiding intubation in the NPPV group was 66. 7%( 10/15) , which was significantly lower than that in the control group ( 33. 3% vs. 86. 4% , P = 0. 009) . However, there was no significant difference in the mortality between two groups( 7. 7% vs.27. 3% , P =0. 300) . The incidence rates of pulmonary bacteria infection and multiple organ damage were significantly lower in the NPPV success subgroup as compared with the NPPV failure group( 2 /10 vs. 4/5, P =0. 01;1 /10 vs. 3/5, P = 0. 03) . Correlation analysis showed that failure of NPPV was significantly associated with pulmonary bacterial infection and multiple organ damage( r=0. 58, P lt;0. 05; r =0. 53, P lt;0. 05) . Logistic stepwise regression analysis showed that pulmonary bacterial infection was an independent risk factor associated with failure of NPPV( r2 =0. 33, P =0. 024) . In the success subgroup, respiratory rate significantly decreased( 29 ±4 breaths /min vs. 33 ±5 breaths /min, P lt; 0. 05) and PaO2 /FiO2 significantly increased ( 191 ±63 mmHg vs. 147 ±55 mmHg, P lt;0. 05) at the time of 24 hours after NPPV treatment as compared with baseline. There were no significant change after NPPV treatment in heart rate, APACHEⅡ score, pH and PaCO2 ( all P gt;0. 05) . On the other hand in the failure subgroup, after 24 hours NPPV treatment, respiratory rate significantly increased( 40 ±3 breaths /min vs. 33 ±3 breaths /min, P lt;0. 05) and PaO2 /FiO2 showed a tendency to decline( 98 ±16 mmHg vs. 123 ±34 mmHg, P gt; 0. 05) . Conclusions In selected patients, NPPV is an effective and safe intervention for ALI/ARDS with improvement of pulmonary oxygenation and decrease of intubation rate. The results of current study support the use of NPPV in ALI/ARDS as the firstline choice of early intervention with mechanical ventilation.
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of goal directed analgesia on patients with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis was a retrospective study. Two hundred sixty-four patients requiring non-invasive positive pressure ventilation were enrolled in the ICU of this hospital, including 118 patients in the empirical analgesia group and 146 in the goal directed analgesia group. The empirical analgesia group was treated with remifentanil to analgesia and propofol, midazolam or dexmedetomidine to sedation. The sedative depth maintained <1 measured by the score of the Richmond restless sedative scale (RASS). The same analgesic and sedative drug were first used in the goal directed analgesia group to maintain the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool score <2, and the RASS score <1 was maintained after the analgesia depth were achieved. Whether the patients occurred delirium was assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. The dosage of analgesic and sedative drugs, the dependability (based on the total ventilation time in the first 24 hours after ventilation), the incidence of delirium, the rate of invasive ventilation, the total time of NPPV and the length of stay of ICU were observed in the two groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in age, sex, APACHEⅡ score, mean arterial pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, SpO2, arterial blood gas and the reason of NPPV between the two groups. The dosage of analgesic and sedative drugs in the goal directed analgesia group were less than the empirical analgesia group, and the dependability was higher than that of the empirical analgesia group ［(12.6±5.8)h vs. (10.9±4.8)h, P<0.05), and the incidence of delirium and the rate of invasive ventilation were also lower than those of the empirical analgesia group (15.8% vs. 25.4%, P<0.05; 32.9% vs. 44.9%, P<0.05). The total time of NPPV in the goal directed analgesia group was shorter than that of the empirical analgesia group ［(28.6±8.8)h vs. (37.3±10.7)h, P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the length of stay in ICU.ConclusionGoal directed analgesia can improve the dependability of NPPV patients, reduce the use of sedative drugs, and decrease the incidence of delirium and rate of invasive ventilation.