Objective The risk factors of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) combined with failure of respiratory failure were identified by meta-analysis, so as to provide a basis for early clinical prevention and treatment failure and early intervention. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP and CBM Data were searched to collect studies about risk factors about failure of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in AECOPD and respiratory failure published from January 2000 to January 2021. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, literature data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on the final literature obtained using RevMan 5.3 software. Results Totally 19 studies involving 3418 patients were recruited. The statistically significant risk factors included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHEⅡ) score, pre-treatment PCO2, pre-treatment pH, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), respiratory rate (RR) before treatment, body mass index (BMI), age, C-reactive protein (CRP), renal insufficiency, sputum disturbance, aspiration of vomit. Conclusions High APACHE-Ⅱ score, high PCO2 before treatment, low pH value before treatment, low GCS score, high RR before treatment, low BMI, advanced age, low albumin, high CRP, renal insufficiency, sputum disturbance, and vomit aspiration were the risk factors for failure of respiratory failure in patients with COPD treated by NIPPV. Failure of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in COPD patients with respiratory failure is affected by a variety of risk factors, and early identification and control of risk factors is particularly important to reduce the rate of treatment failure.
ObjectiveTo analyze the effect of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) on the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) combined with lung injury [acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)] in emergency treatment. MethodsFifty-six patients with SAP combined with ALI/ARDS treated between January 2013 and March 2015 were included in our study. Twenty-eight patients who underwent NPPV were designated as the treatment group, while the other 28 patients who did not undergo NPPV were regarded as the control group. Then, we observed patients' blood gas indexes before and three days after treatment. The hospital stay and mortality rate of the two groups were also compared. ResultsBefore treatment, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of pH value and arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) (P>0.05). Three days after treatment, blood pH value of the treatment group and the control group was 7.41±0.07 and 7.34±0.04, respectively, with a significant difference (P＜0.05); the PaO2 value was respectively (60.60±5.11) and (48.40±3.57) mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa), also with a significant difference (P＜0.05). The hospital stay of the treatment group and the control group was (18.22±3.07) and (23.47±3.55) days with a significant difference (P＜0.05); and the six-month mortality was 17% and 32% in the two groups without any significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionIt is effective to treat patients with severe acute pancreatitis combined with acute lung injury in emergency by noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.
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.
Objective To explore the effects of different humidification and heating strategies during non-invasive positive pressure ventilation( NIPPV) in patients with ALI/ARDS. Methods A total of 45 patients with ALI/ARDS were randomly divided into three groups to receive NIPPV with different humidification and heating strategies, ie. Group A ( humidification with a 370 Humidifier without heating) ,group B ( humidification with a 370 Humidifier along with a MR410 Heater) , and group C ( humidification and heating with aMR850 Humidifier, and a RT308 circuit heater) . The changes of air temperature, absolute humidity, relative humidity, sputum thickness and patient comfort were compared between the three groups. Sputum thickness was evaluated with AWSS scoring system. Results After humidification and heating, the air temperature, absolute humidity and AWSS score improved significantly in group B [ elevated from ( 23. 9 ±1. 0) ℃, (9.8 ±1. 3) mg/L and 2. 0 ±0. 7 respectively to ( 30. 3 ±1. 7) ℃, ( 31. 0 ±2. 3)mg/L and ( 3. 0 ±0. 9) respectively, P lt; 0. 001] and group C [ elevated from( 23. 8 ±1. 0) , ( 9. 8 ±1. 5)mg/L and ( 2. 1 ±0. 7) respectively to ( 34. 0 ±1. 1) ℃, ( 43.8 ±2. 5) mg /L and 3. 5 ±1. 0 respectively,P lt; 0. 001] . Air temperature and absolute humidity were significantly higher in group C than those in group B( P lt; 0. 001) . Of all the parameters, only absolute humidity showed a significant improvment in group A [ elevated from( 9. 9 ±1. 6) mg/L to ( 11. 9 ±0. 9) mg/L, P lt; 0. 001] . The degree of comfort in group C was significantly higher than that in group A and B [ 8. 0 ±1. 7 vs 5. 0 ±1. 2 and 3. 0 ±0. 4, respectively, P lt;0. 001] . In group A seven patients were switched to group C because of discomfort, four accepted NIPPV continuously, and two avoided invasive mechanical ventilation eventually. In group B three patients were switched to group C because of intolerance of too much condensed water in the breathing circuit, all of them accepted NIPPV continuously, and one avoided invasive mechanical ventilation eventually. Conclusions Compared with mere humidification or humidification with heating humidifier, humidification with heating humidifier and circuit heating during NIPPV can improve the absolute humidity, air temperature and patient comfort,meanwhile decreasing the sputumthickness of patients with ALI/ARDS.
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.
Objective To investigate the feasibility of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride in sedation practices during NPPV for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD ( AECOPD) and respiratory failure. Methods 50 patients with AECOPD and respiratory failure, admitted in ICU between January 2011 and April 2012, were divide into an observation group and a control group. All patients received conventional treatment and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation ( NPPV) . Meanwhile in the observation group, dexmedetomidine hydrochloride ( 1 μg/kg) was intravenously injected within 10 minutes, then maintained using a micropump by 0.1 ～0. 6 μg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 to maintaining Ramsay Sedation Scale ( RSS) score ranged from 2 to 4. The patients’compliance to NPPV treatment ( conversion rate to invasive ventilation) and ICU stay were compared between two groups. Heart rate,mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, and arterial blood gas ( pH, PaO2 , PaCO2 ) before and 24 hours after treatment were also compared. Results After 24 hours treatment, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, and arterial blood gas were all improved in two groups, while the improvements were more remarkable in the observation group. The conversion rate to invasive ventilation ( 4% vs. 16% ) and ICUstay [ ( 5.47 ±3.19) d vs. ( 8.78 ±3.45) d] were lower in the observation group than those in the control group. ( P lt;0.05) . Conclusion Dexmedetomidine hydrochloride may serve as a safe and effective sedative drug during NPPV in patients with AECOPD and respiratory failure.