Invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Early recognition of patients who might potentially require ventilatory support is a key goal of critical care outreach programs and an important skill for all hospital medical staff. Decisions about the initiation and timing of invasive ventilation can be difficult and early discussion with critical care colleagues is essential. Appropriateness of invasive ventilatory support may also be an issue requiring advanced discussion with patients and their families. In the past 10–15 years, the role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has expanded, not least in an attempt to minimize the complications inherent with invasive ventilation. As such, NIV is now considered first-line therapy in some conditions (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary oedema, mild-to-moderate hypoxaemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients), and a ‘trial of NIV’ is often considered in respiratory failure resulting from an increasingly wide range of causes. When using NIV, the importance of the environment (setting, monitoring and experience of staff) and forward planning cannot be overemphasized. When used for other than the standard indications, NIV should be employed in a high-dependency/intensive care setting only in patients for whom invasive ventilation would be considered.

Related collections

Most cited references 29

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

Timothy Girard, John Kress, Barry Fuchs … (2008)

Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.

0 comments Cited 482 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure

Stefano Nava, Nicholas Hill (2009)

Summary Non-invasive mechanical ventilation has been increasingly used to avoid or serve as an alternative to intubation. Compared with medical therapy, and in some instances with invasive mechanical ventilation, it improves survival and reduces complications in selected patients with acute respiratory failure. The main indications are exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, pulmonary infiltrates in immunocompromised patients, and weaning of previously intubated stable patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, this technique can be used in postoperative patients or those with neurological diseases, to palliate symptoms in terminally ill patients, or to help with bronchoscopy; however further studies are needed in these situations before it can be regarded as first-line treatment. Non-invasive ventilation implemented as an alternative to intubation should be provided in an intensive care or high-dependency unit. When used to prevent intubation in otherwise stable patients it can be safely administered in an adequately staffed and monitored ward.