Original Article
Noninvasive and invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure in critically ill patients: a comparative cohort study
Abstract
Background: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) for acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with a marked reduction in intubation rate, complications, hospital length of stay and mortality. Multiple studies have indicated that patients failing NPPV have worse outcomes compared with patients with successful NPPV treatment; however limited data is available on risks associated with NPPV failure resulting in (delayed) intubation and outcomes compared with initial intubation. The purpose of this study is to assess rates and predictors of NPPV failure and to compare hospital outcomes of patients with NPPV failure with those patients primarily intubated without a prior NPPV trial.
Methods: A retrospective observational study using data from patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the ICU in the period 2013–2014. All patients treated with NPPV were evaluated. A sample of patients who were primarily intubated was randomly selected to serve as controls for the group of patients who failed NPPV.
Results: NPPV failure was recorded in 30.8% of noninvasively ventilated patients and was associated with longer ICU stay [OR, 1.16, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.04–1.30] and lower survival rates (OR, 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02–0.59) compared with NPPV success. Multivariate analysis showed presence of severe sepsis at study entry, higher Simplified Acute Physiology II Score (SAPS-II) score, lower ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen (PF-ratio) and lower plasma glucose were predictors for NPPV failure. After controlling for potential confounders, patients with NPPV failure did not show any difference in hospital outcomes compared with patients who were primarily intubated.
Conclusions: Patients with acute respiratory failure and NPPV failure have worse outcomes compared with NPPV success patients, however not worse than initially intubated patients. An initial trial of NPPV therefore may be suitable in selected cases of patients with acute respiratory failure, since NPPV could be potentially beneficial and does not seem to result in worse outcome in case of NPPV failure compared to primary intubation. A prospective trial is warranted to confirm findings.
Methods: A retrospective observational study using data from patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the ICU in the period 2013–2014. All patients treated with NPPV were evaluated. A sample of patients who were primarily intubated was randomly selected to serve as controls for the group of patients who failed NPPV.
Results: NPPV failure was recorded in 30.8% of noninvasively ventilated patients and was associated with longer ICU stay [OR, 1.16, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.04–1.30] and lower survival rates (OR, 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02–0.59) compared with NPPV success. Multivariate analysis showed presence of severe sepsis at study entry, higher Simplified Acute Physiology II Score (SAPS-II) score, lower ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen (PF-ratio) and lower plasma glucose were predictors for NPPV failure. After controlling for potential confounders, patients with NPPV failure did not show any difference in hospital outcomes compared with patients who were primarily intubated.
Conclusions: Patients with acute respiratory failure and NPPV failure have worse outcomes compared with NPPV success patients, however not worse than initially intubated patients. An initial trial of NPPV therefore may be suitable in selected cases of patients with acute respiratory failure, since NPPV could be potentially beneficial and does not seem to result in worse outcome in case of NPPV failure compared to primary intubation. A prospective trial is warranted to confirm findings.
