[Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a general respiratory ward]. Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a prospective randomised placebo-controlled trial. Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomised trial. Prehospital noninvasive pressure support ventilation for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Comparison of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. Continuous positive airway pressure vs. pressure support ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized trial. Early use of non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on general respiratory wards: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of the use of continuous positive airway pressure and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the early treatment of patients presenting to the emergency department with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: the 3CPO trial. Acute respiratory failure in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia. A prospective randomized evaluation of noninvasive ventilation.
In patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), noninvasive ventilatory support (NPPV) with bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) may improve clinical and physiological parameters. The present study used a randomized, prospective design to evaluate the possible benefits of NPPV plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone in patients admitted with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in a respiratory unit of a tertiary hospital.
                Forty-one patients were included in the study. Of them, 20 were randomly allocated to receive NPPV with a standard mask connected to a BiPAP ventilatory assist device (Respironics Inc, Murrysville, PA) and 21 to standard therapy. Both groups had similar characteristics upon their admission in the hospital.
                The use of noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced the respiratory rates and improved the conscious level within the first 2 h (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in PaCO2 and pH (p < 0.05) at 6 h of treatment. The need for intubation was 5% in the NPPV group vs 14% in the control group. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the NPPV group (7 vs 10 days; p < 0.01). Nasal NPPV was well tolerated and complications were uncommon and mild.
                Early use of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease leads to a more rapid improvement of physiological variables. Moreover, it is possible to apply this treatment in a general respiratory ward. The aim of the present study was to clarify whether the known effects of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in patients with respiratory failure are real or due to placebo effects and whether early application of NPPV in the emergency department leads to rapid improvement of the patients condition and outcome. A prospective randomised placebo-controlled study was conducted in 20 patients with severe acute respiratory failure (ARF) secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or acute pulmonary oedema, not improving under conventional medical therapy and on the edge of intubation. Patients received either conventional medical therapy plus two-level NPPV (hi-level NPPV) or conventional medical therapy plus "placebo" NPPV. The main outcome measures involved the need for endotracheal intubation in the bi-level NPPV arm and in the placebo arm after crossing over to active NPPV. Morbidity, length of stay, mortality and the effect of the ventilatory mode on clinical, arterial-blood gas parameters, and the sternocleidomastoid muscles electromyogram (EMG) activity were also measured. The 10 patients in the active NPPV group rapidly improved and none needed intubation. Placebo NPPV resulted in no change in the clinical condition of patients that continued to worsen and the 10 patients were crossed over to active NPPV. Three patients were intubated. No differences in terms of morbidity, length of stay or mortality between the two groups were observed. Active NPPV (but not placebo NPPV) led to a rapid and significant improvement in the clinical parameters, pH and the carbon dioxide tension in arterial blood and to a decrease in respiratory frequency and sternocleidomastoid EMG activity. Early application of bi-level noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in patients with severe acute respiratory failure, due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute pulmonary oedema, leads to a rapid improvement in clinical status and blood gases. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation had no placebo effect. Non-invasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) is an effective treatment for acute respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We assessed the efficacy of this therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in a randomised comparison with conventional oxygen therapy.
                40 patients were randomly assigned conventional oxygen therapy or NIPSV supplied by a standard ventilator through a face mask, with adjustment of tidal volume and pressure support in addition to a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cm water. Physiological measurements were obtained in the first 2 h and at 3 h, 4 h, and 10 h. The main endpoints were intubation rate and resolution time. Analyses were by intention to treat.
                Three patients were withdrawn on the basis of clinical and chest radiography results. Endotracheal intubation was required in one (5%) of 19 patients assigned NIPSV and in six (33%) of 18 assigned conventional oxygen therapy (p=0.037). Resolution time (defined as a clinical improvement with oxygen saturation of 96% or more and respiratory rate less than 30 breaths/min) was significantly shorter in the NIPSV group (median 30 [IQR 15-53] vs 105 [50-230] min, p=0.002). NIPSV led to a rapid improvement in oxygenation in the first 2 h. There were no differences in hospital length of stay or mortality.
                In this study of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, NIPSV was superior to conventional oxygen therapy. Further studies should compare NIPSV with continuous positive airway pressure. Severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) can successfully be treated with noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) in a clinical setting. Whether prehospital NIPSV starting early at patients' home and being continued until hospital arrival is feasible and improves ACPE emergency care is examined in this study. End points of the study were oxygen saturation at hospital admission and clinical outcome. Twenty-three patients suffering from severe cardiac pulmonary edema with severe dyspnea, an oxygen saturation of less than 90% and basal rales were included in this controlled prospective randomized trial. All patients received standard medical treatment and 10 patients were additionally treated with NIPSV (pressure support level, 12 cmH2O; positive endexpiratory pressure, 5 cmH2O; FiO2, 0.6) whereas the other patients received oxygen (8 l/min) via Venturi face mask. Improvement in oxygen saturation was significantly faster in the NIPSV group and oxygen saturation was higher at the time of the hospital admission (NIPSV=97.3+/-0.8%; standard=89.5+/-2.7%, P=0.002). A trend toward higher troponin T levels was seen in the standard treatment group. The need for intensive care treatment did not differ, and one patient of each treatment group died in hospital. No complications were noted during the treatment with NIPSV. Prehospital NIPSV is feasible and able to improve emergency management of ACPE. To compare the efficacy of standard medical therapy (ST) and noninvasive mechanical ventilation additional to standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (HARF).
                Single center, prospective, randomized, controlled study.
                Pulmonary medicine directed critical care unit in a university hospital.
                Between March 1993 and November 1996, 30 HARF patients were randomized to receive ST or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in addition to ST.
                NPPV was given with an air-cushioned face via a mechanical ventilator (Puritan Bennett 7200) with initial setting of 5 cm H2O continuous positive airway pressure and 15 cm H2O pressure support.
                At the time of randomization, patients in the ST group had (mean+/-SD) PaO2 of 54+/-13 mm Hg, PaCO2 of 67+/-11 mm Hg, pH of 7.28+/-0.02, and respiratory rate of 35.0+/-5.8 breaths/min. Patients in the NPPV group had PaO2 of 55+/-14, PaCO2 of 69+/-15, pH of 7.27+/-0.07, and respiratory rate of 34.0+/-8.1 breaths/min. With ST, there was significant improvement of only respiratory rate (p < 0.05). However, with NPPV, PaO2 (p < 0.001), PaCO2 (p < 0.001), pH (p < 0.001), and respiratory rate (p < 0.001) improved significantly compared with baseline. Six hours after randomization, pH (p < 0.01) and respiratory rate (p < 0.01) in NPPV patients were significantly better than with ST. Hospital stay for NPPV vs ST patients was, respectively, 11.7+/-3.5 and 14.6+/-4.7 days (p < 0.05). One patient in the NPPV group required invasive mechanical ventilation. The conditions of six patients in the ST group deteriorated and they were switched to NPPV; this was successful in four patients, two failures were invasively ventilated.
                This study suggests that early application of NPPV in HARF patients facilitates improvement, decreases need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and decreases the duration of hospitalization. Both non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and non-invasive pressure support ventilation (nPSV) have been shown to be effective treatment for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). In patients with severe ACPE who are treated with standard medical treatment, the baseline intubation rate is approximately 24%.
                This study was conducted to compare the endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate using two techniques, nCPAP vs. nPSV. In addition, mortality rate, improvement in gas exchange, duration of ventilation, and hospital length of stay were also assessed.
                This prospective, multi-center, randomized study enrolled 80 patients with ACPE who were randomized to receive nCPAP or nPSV (40 patients in each group) via an oronasal mask. Inclusion criteria were severe dyspnea, respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, use of respiratory accessory muscles, or PaO(2)/FiO(2) < 200.
                ETI was required in 0 (0%) and in 3 (7.5%) patients in the nCPAP group and in the nPSV group, respectively (p = 0.241). No significant difference was observed in in-hospital mortality: 2 (5%) vs. 7 (17.5%) in nCPAP and nPSV groups, respectively (p = 0.154). No difference in hospital length of stay was observed between the two groups, nor was there a difference observed in duration of ventilation, despite a trend for reduced time with nPSV vs. nCPAP (5.91 ± 4.01 vs. 8.46 ± 7.14 h, respectively, p = 0.052). Both nCPAP and nPSV were effective in improving gas exchange, including in the subgroup of hypercapnic patients.
                Both methods are effective treatment for patients with ACPE. Non-invasive CPAP should be considered as the first line of treatment because it is easier to use and less expensive than non-invasive PSV.
                Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Within the intensive-care unit, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent the need for intubation and the mortality associated with severe episodes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to find whether the introduction of NIV, early after the admission on a general respiratory ward, was effective at reducing the need for intubation and the mortality associated with acute exacerbations of COPD.
                We did a prospective multicentre randomised controlled study comparing NIV with standard therapy in patients with mild to moderate acidosis. NIV was administered on the ward with a simple non-invasive ventilator and a standardised predefined protocol. Patients were recruited from 14 UK hospitals over 22 months.
                236 patients were recruited, 118 received standard therapy alone and 118 additional NIV. The two groups had similar characteristics at enrolment. The use of NIV significantly reduced the need for intubation as defined by the failure criteria. 32/118 (27%) of the standard group failed compared with 18/118 (15%) of the NIV group (p=0.02). In-hospital mortality was also reduced by NIV, 24/118 (20%) died in the standard group compared with 12/118 (10%) in the NIV group (p=0.05). In both groups pH, PaCO2, and respiratory rate improved at 4 h (p<0.01). However, NIV led to a more rapid improvement in pH in the first hour (p=0.02) and a greater fall in respiratory rate at 4 h (p=0.035). The duration of breathlessness was also reduced by NIV (p=0.025).
                The early use of NIV for mildly and moderately acidotic patients with COPD in the general ward setting leads to more rapid improvement of physiological variables, a reduction in the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (with objective criteria), and a reduction in in-hospital mortality. To determine whether non-invasive ventilation reduces mortality and whether there are important differences in outcome by treatment modality.
                Multicentre open prospective randomised controlled trial.
                Patients presenting with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in 26 emergency departments in the UK.
                Inclusion criteria were age > 16 years, clinical diagnosis of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, pulmonary oedema on chest radiograph, respiratory rate > 20 breaths per minute, and arterial hydrogen ion concentration > 45 nmol/l (pH < 7.35).
                Patients were randomised to standard oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (5-15 cmH2O) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) (inspiratory pressure 8-20 cmH2O, expiratory pressure 4-10 cmH2O) on a 1:1:1 basis for a minimum of 2 hours.
                The primary end point for the comparison between NIPPV or CPAP and standard therapy was 7-day mortality. The composite primary end point for the comparison of NIPPV and CPAP was 7-day mortality and tracheal intubation rate. Secondary end points were breathlessness, physiological variables, intubation rate, length of hospital stay and critical care admission rate. Economic evaluation took the form of a cost-utility analysis, taken from an NHS (and personal social services) perspective.
                In total, 1069 patients [mean age 78 (SD 10) years; 43% male] were recruited to standard therapy (n = 367), CPAP [n = 346; mean 10 (SD 4) cmH2O] or NIPPV [n = 356; mean 14 (SD 5)/7 (SD 2) cmH2O]. There was no difference in 7-day mortality for standard oxygen therapy (9.8%) and non-invasive ventilation (9.5%; p = 0.87). The combined end point of 7-day death and intubation rate was similar, irrespective of non-invasive ventilation modality (CPAP 11.7% versus NIPPV 11.1%; p = 0.81). Compared with standard therapy, non-invasive ventilation was associated with greater reductions (treatment difference, 95% confidence intervals) in breathlessness (visual analogue scale score 0.7, 0.2-1.3; p = 0.008) and heart rate (4/min, 1-6; p = 0.004) and improvement in acidosis (pH 0.03, 0.02-0.04; p < 0.001) and hypercapnia (0.7 kPa, 0.4-0.9; p < 0.001) at 1 hour. There were no treatment-related adverse events or differences in other secondary outcomes such as myocardial infarction rate, length of hospital stay, critical care admission rate and requirement for endotracheal intubation. Economic evaluation showed that mean costs and QALYs up to 6 months were 3023 pounds and 0.202 for standard therapy, 3224 pounds and 0.213 for CPAP, and 3208 pounds and 0.210 for NIPPV. Modelling of lifetime costs and QALYs produced values of 15,764 pounds and 1.597 for standard therapy, 17,525 pounds and 1.841 for CPAP, and 17,021 pounds and 1.707 for NIPPV. These results suggest that both CPAP and NIPPV accrue more QALYs but at higher cost than standard therapy. However, these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty.
                Non-invasive ventilatory support delivered by either CPAP or NIPPV safely provides earlier improvement and resolution of breathlessness, respiratory distress and metabolic abnormality. However, this does not translate into improved short- or longer-term survival. We recommend that CPAP or NIPPV should be considered as adjunctive therapy in patients with severe acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in the presence of severe respiratory distress or when there is a failure to improve with pharmacological therapy.
                Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07448447. In uncontrolled studies, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) was found useful in avoiding endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We conducted a prospective, randomized study comparing standard treatment plus NPPV delivered through a face mask to standard treatment alone in patients with severe CAP and ARF. Patients fitting the American Thoracic Society criteria for severe CAP were included in presence of ARF (refractory hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia with acidosis). Exclusion criteria were: severe hemodynamic instability, requirement for emergent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, home mechanical ventilation or oxygen long-term supplementation, concomitant severe disease with a low expectation of life, inability to expectorate or contraindications to the use of the mask. Fifty-six consecutive patients (28 in each arm) were enrolled, and the two groups were similar at study entry. The use of NPPV was well tolerated, safe, and associated with a significant reduction in respiratory rate, need for endotracheal intubation (21% versus 50%; p = 0.03), and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.8 +/- 0.7 d versus 6 +/- 1.8 d; p = 0.04). The two groups had a similar intensity of nursing care workload, time interval from study entry to endotracheal intubation, duration of hospitalization, and hospital mortality. Among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), those randomized to NPPV had a lower intensity of nursing care workload (p = 0.04) and improved 2-mo survival (88.9% versus 37.5%; p = 0.05). We conclude that in selected patients with ARF caused by severe CAP, NPPV was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of endotracheal intubation and duration of ICU stay. A 2-mo survival advantage was seen in patients with COPD.
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.