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
目的比较经鼻间歇正压通气(nIPPV)与经鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)在新生儿呼吸衰竭中的疗效。方法采用RCT研究的方法,选择2008年1～12月在第三军医大学大坪医院NICU住院的呼吸衰竭新生儿作为研究对象,按随机数字表法将研究对象随机分为n...目的比较经鼻间歇正压通气(nIPPV)与经鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)在新生儿呼吸衰竭中的疗效。方法采用RCT研究的方法,选择2008年1～12月在第三军医大学大坪医院NICU住院的呼吸衰竭新生儿作为研究对象,按随机数字表法将研究对象随机分为nIPPV组和nCPAP组,分别实施nIPPV或nCPAP干预,观察患儿动脉血气分析、应用nIPPV和nCPAP时间、并发症和预后等指标,比较nIPPV组和nCPAP组治疗后需气管插管行机械通气的比例及其预后结局。结果研究期间nIPPV组纳入48例,nCPAP组纳入53例。两组在性别构成比、胎龄、年龄、出生体重、出生后5 m inApgar评分、新生儿急性生理学评分和应用肺表面活性物质比例等方面差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。两组呼吸衰竭原发病分布差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组治疗前血气分析指标差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05),nIPPV组治疗后1 h血气分析pH和PaO2显著高于nCPAP组(P<0.05)。nIPPV组治疗成功率为77.1%(37/48例),nCPAP组为62.3%(33/53例),nIPPV组显著高于nCPAP组(P<0.05)。nIPPV组和nCPAP组治疗成功的患儿平均应用nIPPV和nCPAP的时间差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。nIPPV组的预后结局中治愈和好转出院45/48例(93.8%),nCPAP组为46/53例(86.8%),两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论与nCPAP相比,nIPPV治疗可显著降低呼吸衰竭新生儿气管插管行机械通气的比例。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.
文摘目的比较经鼻间歇正压通气(nIPPV)与经鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)在新生儿呼吸衰竭中的疗效。方法采用RCT研究的方法,选择2008年1～12月在第三军医大学大坪医院NICU住院的呼吸衰竭新生儿作为研究对象,按随机数字表法将研究对象随机分为nIPPV组和nCPAP组,分别实施nIPPV或nCPAP干预,观察患儿动脉血气分析、应用nIPPV和nCPAP时间、并发症和预后等指标,比较nIPPV组和nCPAP组治疗后需气管插管行机械通气的比例及其预后结局。结果研究期间nIPPV组纳入48例,nCPAP组纳入53例。两组在性别构成比、胎龄、年龄、出生体重、出生后5 m inApgar评分、新生儿急性生理学评分和应用肺表面活性物质比例等方面差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。两组呼吸衰竭原发病分布差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组治疗前血气分析指标差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05),nIPPV组治疗后1 h血气分析pH和PaO2显著高于nCPAP组(P<0.05)。nIPPV组治疗成功率为77.1%(37/48例),nCPAP组为62.3%(33/53例),nIPPV组显著高于nCPAP组(P<0.05)。nIPPV组和nCPAP组治疗成功的患儿平均应用nIPPV和nCPAP的时间差异无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。nIPPV组的预后结局中治愈和好转出院45/48例(93.8%),nCPAP组为46/53例(86.8%),两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论与nCPAP相比,nIPPV治疗可显著降低呼吸衰竭新生儿气管插管行机械通气的比例。
