Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is an important therapeutic modality for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). In this review, we critically analyze randomized controlled trials on the most used ...Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is an important therapeutic modality for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). In this review, we critically analyze randomized controlled trials on the most used NIV interfaces in the treatments of ARF. Methods: The searches were conducted in the Medline, Lilacs, PubMed, Cochrane, and Pedro databases from June to November 2021. The inclusion criteria were Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 2016 to 2021 in Portuguese, Spanish, or English and involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years). The eligibility criteria for article selection were based on the PICO strategy: Population—Adults with ARF;Intervention—NIV Therapy;Comparison—Conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy, or NIV;Outcome—improvement in ARF. The search for articles and the implementation of the inclusion criteria were independently conducted by two researchers. Results: Seven scientific articles involving 574 adults with ARF due to various causes, such as chest trauma, decompensated heart failure, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and postoperative period, among others, were included. The interfaces cited in the studies included an oronasal mask, nasal mask, full-face mask, and helmet. In addition, some favorable outcomes related to NIV were reported in the studies, such as a reduction in the rate of orotracheal intubation and shorter length of stay in the ICU. Conclusions: The most cited interfaces in the treatment of ARF were the oronasal mask and the helmet.展开更多
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
文摘Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is an important therapeutic modality for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). In this review, we critically analyze randomized controlled trials on the most used NIV interfaces in the treatments of ARF. Methods: The searches were conducted in the Medline, Lilacs, PubMed, Cochrane, and Pedro databases from June to November 2021. The inclusion criteria were Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from 2016 to 2021 in Portuguese, Spanish, or English and involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years). The eligibility criteria for article selection were based on the PICO strategy: Population—Adults with ARF;Intervention—NIV Therapy;Comparison—Conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy, or NIV;Outcome—improvement in ARF. The search for articles and the implementation of the inclusion criteria were independently conducted by two researchers. Results: Seven scientific articles involving 574 adults with ARF due to various causes, such as chest trauma, decompensated heart failure, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and postoperative period, among others, were included. The interfaces cited in the studies included an oronasal mask, nasal mask, full-face mask, and helmet. In addition, some favorable outcomes related to NIV were reported in the studies, such as a reduction in the rate of orotracheal intubation and shorter length of stay in the ICU. Conclusions: The most cited interfaces in the treatment of ARF were the oronasal mask and the helmet.
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.
