scholarly journals Respiratory Care Year in Review 2012: Invasive Mechanical Ventilation, Noninvasive Ventilation, and Cystic Fibrosis

2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 702-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Kallet ◽  
T. A. Volsko ◽  
D. R. Hess
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Care

scholarly journals Effects of early extubation followed by noninvasive ventilation versus standard extubation on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic non-hypercapnic patients: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosanna Vaschetto ◽  
Alessandro Pecere ◽  
Gavin D. Perkins ◽  
Dipesh Mistry ◽  
Gianmaria Cammarota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Early Extubation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Usefulness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in weaning patients with non-hypercapnic hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) is unclear. The study aims to assess in patients with non-hypercapnic hARF, the efficacy of NIV after early extubation, compared to standard weaning. Methods In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials published from database inception to October 2020. To be eligible, studies had to include patients treated with NIV after early extubation and compared to conventional weaning in adult non-hypercapnic hARF patients. Anonymized individual patient data from eligible studies were provided by study investigators. Using one-step and two-step meta-analysis models we tested the difference in total days spent on invasive ventilation. Results We screened 1605 records. Six studies were included in quantitative synthesis. Overall, 459 participants (mean [SD] age, 62 [15] years; 269 [59%] males) recovering from hARF were included in the analysis (233 in the intervention group and 226 controls). Participants receiving NIV had a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to control group (mean difference, − 3.43; 95% CI − 5.17 to − 1.69 days, p < 0.001), a shorter duration of total days spent on mechanical ventilation (mean difference, − 2.04; 95% CI − 3.82 to − 0.27 days, p = 0.024), a reduced risk of ventilatory associated pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, p = 0.014), a reduction of time spent in ICU (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.96, p = 0.015) and in-hospital (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95, p = 0.010), with no difference in ICU mortality. Conclusions Although primary studies are limited, using an individual patient data metanalysis approach, NIV after early extubation appears useful in reducing total days spent on invasive mechanical ventilation. Trial registration The protocol was registered to PROSPERO database on 12/06/2019 and available at PROSPERO website inserting the study code i.e., CRD42019133837.

Use Of Non Invasive Mechanical Ventilation In Patients With Cystic Fibrosis

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Llontop Guzman ◽  
Concepción Prados ◽  
María Antonia Gómez Mendieta ◽  
Ana Santiago ◽  
Luis Gomez Carrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive

scholarly journals Corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with mild to critically-ill COVID-19: a multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoshi Ikeda ◽  
Toshihiro Misumi ◽  
Shinyu Izumi ◽  
Keita Sakamoto ◽  
Naoki Nishimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Noninvasive Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Radiological Findings ◽  
Corticosteroid Administration ◽  
Matched Study

AbstractCorticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score–matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January–April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388–0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323–2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841–2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347–5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document