Negative pressure ventilation versus conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in COPD patients

Le résumé fourni par la source

This case-control study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of negative pressure ventilation (NPV) versus conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) admitted to a respiratory intermediate intensive care unit (RIICU) and four general intensive care units (ICU). Twenty-six COPD patients in ARF admitted in 1994-95 to RIICU and treated with NPV (cases) were matched according to age (+/-5 yrs), sex, causes triggering ARF, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (+/- 5 points), pH (+/-0.05) and arterial carbon dioxide tension (Pa,CO2) on admission with 26 patients admitted to ICU and treated with CMV (controls). The primary end points of the study were inhospital death for both groups and the need for endotracheal intubation for cases. The secondary endpoints were length and complications of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay. The effectiveness of matching was 91%. Mortality rate was 23% for cases and 27% for controls (NS), five cases needed endotracheal intubation, four of whom subsequently died. The duration of ventilation in survivors was significantly lower in cases than in controls, with a median of 16 h (range 2-111) versus 96 h (range 12-336) (P<0.02), whereas the length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups, with a median of 12 days (range 2-47) for cases vs 12 days (range 3-43) (NS) for controls. No complications were observed in cases, whereas three controls developed infective complications. These results suggest that negative pressure ventilation is as efficacious as conventional mechanical ventilation for the treatment of acute respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and that it is associated with a shorter duration of ventilation and a similar length of hospital stay compared with conventional mechanical ventilation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.