Application of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Respiratory Failure

2006 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Mi Seol ◽  
Young Eun Park ◽  
Seo Rin Kim ◽  
Jae Hyung Lee ◽  
Su Jin Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Respiratory Failure due to Severe Acute Pancreatitis

Respiration ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Jaber ◽  
Gérald Chanques ◽  
Mustapha Sebbane ◽  
Farida Salhi ◽  
Jean-Marc Delay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

Comparative study between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed N Al Shafi'i ◽  
Doaa M. Kamal El-din ◽  
Mohammed A. Abdulnaiem Ismaiel ◽  
Hesham M Abotiba
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been increasingly used in the management of respiratory failure in intensive care unit (ICU). Aim of the Work is to compare the efficacy and resource consumption of NIPPMV delivered through face mask against invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) delivered by endotracheal tube in the management of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Patients and Methods This prospective randomized controlled study included 78 adults with acute respiratory failure who were admitted to the intensive care unit. The enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive either noninvasive ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). Results Severity of illness, measured by the simplified acute physiologic score 3 (SAPS 3), were comparable between the two patient groups with no significant difference between them. Both study groups showed a comparable steady improvement in PaO2:FiO2 values, indicating that NIPPV is as effective as CMV in improving the oxygenation of patients with ARF. The PaCO2 and pH values gradually improved in both groups during the 48 hours of ventilation. 12 hours after ventilation, NIPPMV group showed significantly more improvement in PaCO2 and pH than the CMV group. The respiratory acidosis was corrected in the NIPPV group after 24 hours of ventilation compared with 36 hours in the CMV group. NIPPV in this study was associated with a lower frequency of complications than CMV, including ventilator acquired pneumonia (VAP), sepsis, renal failure, pulmonary embolism, and pancreatitis. However, only VAP showed a statistically significant difference. Patients who underwent NIPPV in this study had lower mortality, and lower ventilation time and length of ICU stay, compared with patients on CMV. Intubation was required for less than a third of patients who initially underwent NIV. Conclusion Based on our study findings, NIPPV appears to be a potentially effective and safe therapeutic modality for managing patients with ARF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document