Publication:
Approach of pulmonologists in Turkey to noninvasive mechanical ventilation use in acute respiratory failure

dc.contributor.authorOLGUN YILDIZELİ, ŞEHNAZ
dc.contributor.authorsUgurlu, Aylin Ozsancak; Ergan, Begum; Takir, Huriye Berk; In, Erdal; Ozyilmaz, Ezgi; Edipoglu, Ozlem Ertan; Acarturk, Eylem; Balbay, Ege Gulec; Dilektasli, Asli Gorek; Kivanc, Tulay; Ekren, Pervin Korkmaz; Ulasli, Sevinc Sarinc; Dogrul, Ilgaz; Ucar, Elif Yilmazel; Olgun, Sehnaz; Devran, Ozkan; Ergun, Recai; Karakurt, Zuhal
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-25T00:10:56Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-11T07:05:58Z
dc.date.available2022-04-25T00:10:56Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) has been increasingly used worldwide for acute respiratory failure (ARF), especially in patients with chronic lung disorders. We aimed to define the approach of pulmonologists in Turkey to NIV use for ARF management. Materials and Methods: A 38-question survey, developed and tested by authors, was distributed by e-mail to a total of 2.205 pulmonologists in Turkey. Results: Response rate was 27% (n=596). Seventy-one percent of responders were practicing NIV in clinic. NIV use was found to be associated with responder's academic title, age, duration of medical license, type of physician's hospital and its region, patient load, NIV experience during residency, and duration of NIV and intensive care unit (ICU) experience (p<0.001). Based on sub-group analysis of responders using NIV, median number of NIV patients followed-up per week was 4 [interquartile range (IQR): 2-6]. Most of the NIV users reported employment of wards (90%) and/or ICUs (86%) to follow-up patients, while 8.4% of the responders were applying NIV only in ICU's. Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) (99.5%), obesity hypoventilation syndrome (93.7%) and restrictive lung disease (89.4%) were the most common indications. Majority of NIV users (87%) were applying NIV to > 60% of patients with COPD, and success rate in COPD was reported as over 60% by 93% of users. Oronasal mask (median and IQR 90, 80-100%, respectively) and home care NIV ventilators (median and IQR 50, 10-85%, respectively) were the most commonly utilized equipment. Conclusion: NIV use in ARF varies based on hospital type, region and, especially, experience of the physician. Although consistent with guidelines and general practice, NIV use can still be improved and increased.
dc.identifier.doi10.5578/tt.10147
dc.identifier.issn0494-1373
dc.identifier.pubmed26963304
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/263802
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000421352700001
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherTURKISH ASSOC TUBERCULOSIS & THORAX
dc.relation.ispartofTUBERKULOZ VE TORAK-TUBERCULOSIS AND THORAX
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectNoninvasive ventilation
dc.subjectacute respiratory failure
dc.subjectsurvey
dc.subjectchronic obstructive pulmonary disease
dc.subjectintensive care unit
dc.subjectgeneral wards
dc.subjectPOSITIVE-PRESSURE VENTILATION
dc.subjectSTANDARD MEDICAL THERAPY
dc.subjectACUTE-CARE HOSPITALS
dc.subjectWARD
dc.subjectMORTALITY
dc.subjectDISEASE
dc.subjectTRENDS
dc.subjectTRIAL
dc.subjectCOPD
dc.titleApproach of pulmonologists in Turkey to noninvasive mechanical ventilation use in acute respiratory failure
dc.typearticle
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage225
oaire.citation.issue4
oaire.citation.startPage213
oaire.citation.titleTUBERKULOZ VE TORAK-TUBERCULOSIS AND THORAX
oaire.citation.volume63

Files