Original Article
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a clinical comparative study
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
Methods: In this retrospective evaluation, we included 64 patients with ARDS following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 2009 and December 2011. The primary evaluations were 28-day fatality and actual fatality. The secondary evaluations were sex, age, onset time, pH value, PaO2/FiO2, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE-II) score, and presence or absence after surgery of major surgeryrelated complications such as cardiac arrest, anastomotic fistula, and acute renal dysfunction.
Results: NPPV applied as the first-line intervention for ARDS following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer avoided intubation in 30 patients (30/64, 48.4%). There were no significant differences in gender, age, PaO2/FiO2, SOFA score, or APACHE-II score between the NPPV group and the patients who required invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV group) (P>0.05) at the time of onset, while differences in the PaO2/FiO2 (P<0.05) after 24 h of NPPV and presence of major surgery-related complications were highly significant (P<0.01).
Conclusions: NPPV may be an effective option for the treatment of ARDS/acute lung injury (ALI) following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. However, conversion to invasive mechanical ventilation should be considered in patients with severe postoperative complications such as acute renal dysfunction and cardiac arrest and in those with PaO2/ FiO2 <180 after 2 h of NPPV.
Methods: In this retrospective evaluation, we included 64 patients with ARDS following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 2009 and December 2011. The primary evaluations were 28-day fatality and actual fatality. The secondary evaluations were sex, age, onset time, pH value, PaO2/FiO2, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE-II) score, and presence or absence after surgery of major surgeryrelated complications such as cardiac arrest, anastomotic fistula, and acute renal dysfunction.
Results: NPPV applied as the first-line intervention for ARDS following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer avoided intubation in 30 patients (30/64, 48.4%). There were no significant differences in gender, age, PaO2/FiO2, SOFA score, or APACHE-II score between the NPPV group and the patients who required invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV group) (P>0.05) at the time of onset, while differences in the PaO2/FiO2 (P<0.05) after 24 h of NPPV and presence of major surgery-related complications were highly significant (P<0.01).
Conclusions: NPPV may be an effective option for the treatment of ARDS/acute lung injury (ALI) following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. However, conversion to invasive mechanical ventilation should be considered in patients with severe postoperative complications such as acute renal dysfunction and cardiac arrest and in those with PaO2/ FiO2 <180 after 2 h of NPPV.
