Publication:
Comparison of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure

dc.contributor.authorKARAKURT, SAİT
dc.contributor.authorsCelikel, T; Sungur, M; Ceyhan, B; Karakurt, S
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-12T16:56:26Z
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-11T11:23:26Z
dc.date.available2022-03-12T16:56:26Z
dc.date.issued1998
dc.description.abstractStudy objective: To compare the efficacy of standard medical therapy (ST) and noninvasive mechanical ventilation additional to standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (HARF). Design: Single center, prospective, randomized, controlled study. Setting: Pulmonary medicine directed critical care unit in a university hospital. Patients: Between March 1993 and November 1996, 30 HARF patients were randomized to receive ST or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in addition to ST. Interventions: NPPV was given with an air-cushioned face via a mechanical ventilator (Puritan Bennett 7200) with initial setting of 5 cm H2O continuous positive airway pressure and 15 cm H2O pressure support. Results: At the time of randomization, patients in the ST group had (mean +/- SD) Pao(2) of 54 +/- 13 mm Hg, Paco(2) of 67 +/- 11 mm Hg, pH of 7.28 +/- 0.02, and respiratory rate of 35.0 +/- 5.8 breaths/min. Patients in the NPPV group had Pao(2) of 55 +/- 14, Paco(2) of 69 +/- 15, PH of 7.27 +/- 0.07, and respiratory rate of 34.0 +/- 8.1 breaths/min. With ST, there was significant improvement of only respiratory rate (p < 0.05). However, with NPPV, Pao(2) (p < 0.001), Paco(2) (p < 0.001), pH(p < 0.001), and respiratory rate (p < 0.001) improved significantly compared with baseline. Sir; hours after randomization, pH (p < 0.01) and respiratory rate (p < 0.01) in NPPV patients were significantly bet-ter than with ST. Hospital stay for NPPV vs ST patients was, respectively, 11.7 +/- 3.5 and 14.6 +/- 4.7 days (p < 0.05). One patient in the NPPV group required invasive mechanical ventilation. The conditions of six patients in the ST group deteriorated and they were switched to NPPV; this was successful in four patients, two failures were invasively ventilated. Conclusion: This study suggests that early application of NPPV in HARF patients facilitates improvement, decreases need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and decreases the duration of hospitalization.
dc.identifier.doi10.1378/chest.114.6.1636
dc.identifier.issn0012-3692
dc.identifier.pubmed9872200
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11424/226757
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000077613600027
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
dc.relation.ispartofCHEST
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectacute respiratory failure
dc.subjectchronic obstructive pulmonary disease
dc.subjecthypercapnic acute respiratory failure
dc.subjecthypoxemia
dc.subjectintensive care unit
dc.subjectmechanical ventilation
dc.subjectnoninvasive ventilation
dc.subjectOBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY-DISEASE
dc.subjectMECHANICAL VENTILATION
dc.subjectFACE MASK
dc.subjectACUTE EXACERBATIONS
dc.subjectAIRWAY PRESSURE
dc.subjectCOPD PATIENTS
dc.subjectSUPPORT VENTILATION
dc.subjectIMMEDIATE
dc.subjectTRIAL
dc.titleComparison of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage1642
oaire.citation.issue6
oaire.citation.startPage1636
oaire.citation.titleCHEST
oaire.citation.volume114

Files