AIM To characterize the clinical course and outcomes of nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation(NIMV) use in acute pediatric respiratory failure.METHODS We identified all patients treated with NIMV in the pediatric i...AIM To characterize the clinical course and outcomes of nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation(NIMV) use in acute pediatric respiratory failure.METHODS We identified all patients treated with NIMV in the pediatric intensive care unit(PICU) or inpatient general pediatrics between January 2013 and December 2015 at two academic centers.Patients who utilized NIMV with other modes of noninvasive ventilation during the same admission were included.Data included demographics,vital signs on admission and prior to initiation of NIMV,pediatric risk of mortality Ⅲ(PRIsM-Ⅲ) scores,complications,respiratory support characteristics,PICU and hospital length of stays,duration of respiratory support,and complications.Patients who did not require escalation to mechanical ventilation were defined as NIMV responders;those who required escalation to mechanical ventilation(MV) were defined as NIMV nonresponders.NIMV responders were compared to NIMV non-responders.RESULTS Forty-two patients met study criteria.six(14%) failed treatment and required MV.The majority of the patients(74%) had a primary diagnosis of bronchiolitis.The median age of these 42 patients was 4 mo(range 0.5-28.1 mo,IQR 7,P = 0.69).No significant difference was measured in other baseline demographics and vitals on initiation of NIMV;these included age,temperature,respiratory rate,O2 saturation,heart rate,systolic blood pressure,diastolic blood pressure,and PRIsM-Ⅲ scores.The duration of NIMV was shorter in the NIMV nonresponder vs NIMV responder group(6.5 h vs 65 h,P < 0.0005).Otherwise,NIMV failure was not associated with significant differences in PICU length of stay(LOs),hospital LOs,or total duration of respiratory support.No patients had aspiration pneumonia,pneumothorax,or skin breakdown.CONCLUSION Most of our patients responded to NIMV.NIMV failure is not associated with differences in hospital LOs,PICU LOs,or duration of respiratory support.展开更多
目的探讨经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)和经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)作为早产儿气管插管拔管后无创呼吸支持模式的临床应用疗效对比。方法选取2016年1月~2017年6月在我院治疗的新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征65例,采用随机数字表法将患儿随机分为NI...目的探讨经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)和经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)作为早产儿气管插管拔管后无创呼吸支持模式的临床应用疗效对比。方法选取2016年1月~2017年6月在我院治疗的新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征65例,采用随机数字表法将患儿随机分为NIPPV组(n=32)和NCPAP组(n=33),观察两组撤机失败率、无创呼吸支持时间、无创后吸氧时间及总用氧时间,同时检测治疗前后二氧化碳分压(PaCO2)、氧分压(PaO2)和氧合指数(OI),两组并发症的发生情况。结果NIPPV组和NCPAP组撤机失败率、无创后吸氧时间和总用氧时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);NIPPV组无创呼吸支持时间为2(1,3)d,明显短于NCPAP组(P<0.05);NIPPV组和NCPAP组治疗前后PaO2、PaCO2比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);NIPPV组治疗后12 h、24 h OI分别为(240.100±31.140)%和(260.040±38.890)%,明显高于NCPAP组(P<0.05);NIPPV组和NCPAP组支气管肺发育不良、早产儿视网膜病、新生儿坏死性小肠结肠炎和总发生率的比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论相比较NCPAP,早产儿气管插管拔管后应用NIPPV可缩短无创呼吸支持时间,值得临床使用。展开更多
基金supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science,No.UL1TR001881
文摘AIM To characterize the clinical course and outcomes of nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation(NIMV) use in acute pediatric respiratory failure.METHODS We identified all patients treated with NIMV in the pediatric intensive care unit(PICU) or inpatient general pediatrics between January 2013 and December 2015 at two academic centers.Patients who utilized NIMV with other modes of noninvasive ventilation during the same admission were included.Data included demographics,vital signs on admission and prior to initiation of NIMV,pediatric risk of mortality Ⅲ(PRIsM-Ⅲ) scores,complications,respiratory support characteristics,PICU and hospital length of stays,duration of respiratory support,and complications.Patients who did not require escalation to mechanical ventilation were defined as NIMV responders;those who required escalation to mechanical ventilation(MV) were defined as NIMV nonresponders.NIMV responders were compared to NIMV non-responders.RESULTS Forty-two patients met study criteria.six(14%) failed treatment and required MV.The majority of the patients(74%) had a primary diagnosis of bronchiolitis.The median age of these 42 patients was 4 mo(range 0.5-28.1 mo,IQR 7,P = 0.69).No significant difference was measured in other baseline demographics and vitals on initiation of NIMV;these included age,temperature,respiratory rate,O2 saturation,heart rate,systolic blood pressure,diastolic blood pressure,and PRIsM-Ⅲ scores.The duration of NIMV was shorter in the NIMV nonresponder vs NIMV responder group(6.5 h vs 65 h,P < 0.0005).Otherwise,NIMV failure was not associated with significant differences in PICU length of stay(LOs),hospital LOs,or total duration of respiratory support.No patients had aspiration pneumonia,pneumothorax,or skin breakdown.CONCLUSION Most of our patients responded to NIMV.NIMV failure is not associated with differences in hospital LOs,PICU LOs,or duration of respiratory support.
文摘目的探讨经鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)和经鼻持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)作为早产儿气管插管拔管后无创呼吸支持模式的临床应用疗效对比。方法选取2016年1月~2017年6月在我院治疗的新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征65例,采用随机数字表法将患儿随机分为NIPPV组(n=32)和NCPAP组(n=33),观察两组撤机失败率、无创呼吸支持时间、无创后吸氧时间及总用氧时间,同时检测治疗前后二氧化碳分压(PaCO2)、氧分压(PaO2)和氧合指数(OI),两组并发症的发生情况。结果NIPPV组和NCPAP组撤机失败率、无创后吸氧时间和总用氧时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);NIPPV组无创呼吸支持时间为2(1,3)d,明显短于NCPAP组(P<0.05);NIPPV组和NCPAP组治疗前后PaO2、PaCO2比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);NIPPV组治疗后12 h、24 h OI分别为(240.100±31.140)%和(260.040±38.890)%,明显高于NCPAP组(P<0.05);NIPPV组和NCPAP组支气管肺发育不良、早产儿视网膜病、新生儿坏死性小肠结肠炎和总发生率的比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论相比较NCPAP,早产儿气管插管拔管后应用NIPPV可缩短无创呼吸支持时间,值得临床使用。
