Is the flow-safe disposable continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) system as effective as non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary Oedema?

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. 109-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
İlhan UZ ◽  
Güçlü Selahattin KIYAN ◽  
Enver ÖZÇETE ◽  
Sercan YALÇINLI ◽  
Mehmet Birkan KORGAN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Pulmonary Oedema ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema ◽  
Non Invasive

scholarly journals Non-invasive duo positive airway pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Malakian ◽  
Mohammad Reza Aramesh ◽  
Mina Agahin ◽  
Masoud Dehdashtian
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Abstract Background The most common cause of respiratory failure in premature infants is respiratory distress syndrome. Historically, respiratory distress syndrome has been treated by intratracheal surfactant injection followed by mechanical ventilation. In view of the risk of pulmonary injury associated with mechanical ventilation and subsequent chronic pulmonary lung disease, less invasive treatment modalities have been suggested to reduce pulmonary complications. Methods 148 neonates (with gestational age of 28 to 34 weeks) with respiratory distress syndrome admitted to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahwaz in 2018 were enrolled in this clinical trial study. 74 neonates were assigned to duo positive airway pressure (NDUOPAP) group and 74 neonates to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) group. The primary outcome in this study was failure of N-DUOPAP and NCPAP treatments within the first 72 h after birth and secondary outcomes included treatment complications. Results there was not significant difference between DUOPAP (4.1 %) and NCPAP (8.1 %) in treatment failure at the first 72 h of birth (p = 0.494), but non-invasive ventilation time was less in the DUOPAP group (p = 0.004). There were not significant differences in the frequency of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), pneumothorax, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), apnea and mortality between the two groups. Need for repeated doses of surfactant (p = 0.042) in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group. The duration of oxygen therapy in the NDUOPAP group was significantly lower than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.034). Also, the duration of hospitalization in the NDUOPAP group was shorter than that of the NCPAP group (p = 0.002). Conclusions In the present study, DUOPAP compared to NCPAP did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation during the first 72 h of birth, but the duration of non-invasive ventilation and oxygen demand, the need for multiple doses of surfactant and length of stay in the DUOPAP group were less than those in the CPAP group. Trial registration IRCT20180821040847N1, Approved on 2018-09-10.

scholarly journals The role of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) in Delaying or Avoiding Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Cameron ◽  
Sharif Fattah ◽  
Laura Knox ◽  
Pauline Grose
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Royal Infirmary ◽  
High Dependency ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract Background - During the winter of 2020-2021, the second wave of the COVID19 pandemic in the United Kingdom caused increased demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and in particular, for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). To alleviate some of this pressure, some centres offered non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), delivered on specialised COVID high dependency units (cHDUs). However, this practice was based largely on anecdotal reports, and it is not clear from the literature how effective CPAP is at delaying or preventing IMV. Methods - This was a retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to a specialised cHDU at Glasgow Royal Infirmary between November 2020 and February 2021. Each patient had a continuous record of the level of respiratory support required, and was followed up to hospital discharge or death. We examined patient outcomes according to age, sex and maximum level of respiratory support, using logistic regression and time-to-event analysis. The number of patients who could not be oxygenated by standard oxygen facemask but could be oxygenated by CPAP was counted and compared to the number of patients admitted to ICU for IMV over the same period.Results - There were 152 admissions to cHDU over the study period. Of these, 125 received CPAP treatment. Of the patients who received support in cHDU, the overall mortality rate was 37.9% (95% CI 30.3% - 46.1%)). Odds of mortality were closely correlated with increasing age and oxygen requirement. Of the 152 patients, 44 patients (28.8%, 95% CI 22.0 – 36.9%) went on to require IMV in ICU. This represents 77.2% of the 57 COVID-19 admissions to ICU during the same period. However, there were also 41 patients who received levels of respiratory support on cHDU which would normally necessitate ICU admission but who never went to ICU, potentially reducing ICU admissions by 41.8% (95% CI 32.1 – 52.2%).Conclusion - Providing respiratory support in cHDU reduced the number of potential ICU admissions by 41.8%, as well as delaying IMV for over 75% of ICU admissions. This represents a significant sparing of ICU capacity at a time when IMV beds were in high demand.

Comparison of Early Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mesut Dursun ◽  
Sinan Uslu ◽  
Ali Bulbul ◽  
Muhittin Celik ◽  
Umut Zubarioglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

Abstract Aims To compare the effect of early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in terms of the need for endotracheal ventilation in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants born between 24 and 32 gestational weeks. Methods This is a randomized, controlled, prospective, single-centered study. Forty-two infants were randomized to nIPPV and 42 comparable infants to nCPAP (birth weight 1356 ± 295 and 1359 ± 246 g and gestational age 29.2 ± 1.7 and 29.4 ± 1.5 weeks, respectively). Results The need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly lower in the nIPPV group than the nCPAP group (11.9% and 40.5%, respectively, p < 0.05). There were no differences in the duration of total nasal respiratory support, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia or other early morbidities. Conclusion nIPPV compared with nCPAP reduced the need for endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation in premature infants with RDS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document