TY - JOUR
T1 - Non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure
T2 - Pressure support ventilation vs. pressure-controlled ventilation
AU - on behalf of Korean NIV Study Group
AU - Nam, Hyunseung
AU - Cho, Jae Hwa
AU - Park, Tai Sun
AU - Kim, Sei Won
AU - Kang, Hyung Koo
AU - Shin, Yoon Mi
AU - Hwang, Jae Joon
AU - Lee, Kwangha
AU - Ha, Jick Hwan
AU - Lee, Young Seok
AU - Chang, Youjin
AU - Park, Sunghoon
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/5/1
Y1 - 2020/5/1
N2 - Background: The best ventilator mode for patients receiving non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has not been clarified. This study compared the effectiveness of two pressure-targeted modes, i.e., pressure support ventilation (PSV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), in patients receiving NIV. Methods: This was a prospective multicentre observational study of NIV use for acute respiratory failure (ARF) in adult patients. We compared the two pressure-targeted modes in terms of NIV success and complication rates. Results: Among 176 patients receiving NIV, 88 patients were included in the study (PCV mode, n=29; PSV mode, n=59). The study population had a median age of 73.0 years and median body mass index of 20.8 kg/m2. The applied inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) was higher in patients with PCV than in those with PSV [18.0 cmH2O (15.0-20.5 cmH2O) vs. 15.0 cmH2O (12.0-17.0 cmH2O), respectively, P=0.001]. More patients with PCV received sedatives and experienced dry mouth than those with PSV; however, the incidences of large leaks were low in both groups (n=5 vs. n=2, respectively). With regard to NIV outcomes, 24 (27.2%) patients experienced NIV failure and 13 (14.8%) died in hospital. PSV mode was a significant factor for NIV success [odds ratio (OR), 2.303; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.216 to 4.360] in multivariate analyses and this association remained significant in a 1:1 matched cohort (n=29 per group). Conclusions: In contrast to PCV mode, PSV mode was significantly associated with NIV success in the intensive care unit setting, particularly when large leaks were not a major concern. Nevertheless, further well-designed multicenter, protocol-driven randomized controlled trials are warranted.
AB - Background: The best ventilator mode for patients receiving non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has not been clarified. This study compared the effectiveness of two pressure-targeted modes, i.e., pressure support ventilation (PSV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), in patients receiving NIV. Methods: This was a prospective multicentre observational study of NIV use for acute respiratory failure (ARF) in adult patients. We compared the two pressure-targeted modes in terms of NIV success and complication rates. Results: Among 176 patients receiving NIV, 88 patients were included in the study (PCV mode, n=29; PSV mode, n=59). The study population had a median age of 73.0 years and median body mass index of 20.8 kg/m2. The applied inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) was higher in patients with PCV than in those with PSV [18.0 cmH2O (15.0-20.5 cmH2O) vs. 15.0 cmH2O (12.0-17.0 cmH2O), respectively, P=0.001]. More patients with PCV received sedatives and experienced dry mouth than those with PSV; however, the incidences of large leaks were low in both groups (n=5 vs. n=2, respectively). With regard to NIV outcomes, 24 (27.2%) patients experienced NIV failure and 13 (14.8%) died in hospital. PSV mode was a significant factor for NIV success [odds ratio (OR), 2.303; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.216 to 4.360] in multivariate analyses and this association remained significant in a 1:1 matched cohort (n=29 per group). Conclusions: In contrast to PCV mode, PSV mode was significantly associated with NIV success in the intensive care unit setting, particularly when large leaks were not a major concern. Nevertheless, further well-designed multicenter, protocol-driven randomized controlled trials are warranted.
KW - Acute respiratory failure (ARF)
KW - Non-invasive ventilation (NIV)
KW - Treatment outcome
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85086031980
U2 - 10.21037/jtd.2020.03.27
DO - 10.21037/jtd.2020.03.27
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85086031980
SN - 2072-1439
VL - 12
SP - 2553
EP - 2562
JO - Journal of Thoracic Disease
JF - Journal of Thoracic Disease
IS - 5
ER -