Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema in an Intensive Care Unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-64
Author(s):  
Alberto Belenguer Muncharaz
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Pulmonary Edema ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema ◽  
Non Invasive

scholarly journals Penggunaan Ventilasi Mekanik non Invansif Untuk Mengatasi Kegagalan Pernafasan pada Pasien dengan Edema Pulmo Akut Kardiogenik

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
Eva Marti
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Pulmonary Edema ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
First Choice

Background: Cardiogenic Pulmo edema can cause a heterogeneous syndrome with a mortality rate of up to 9.5% (Aliberti et all., 2018).Objective: The purpose of this paper was to explain how effective the use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute pulmonary edema with respiratory failure. Methods: The literature review was compiled by synthesizing and comparing various relevant scientific articles from the literature search results using the online database of Proquest and Clinicalkey Elsevier that have significance related to the management of acute cardiogenic pulmo edema. Result: Compared with conservative therapy,  noninvasive mechanical ventilation has been shown more effective in improving oxygenation in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmo edema Non-invasive ventilation can reduce dyspnea, acidosis and hypercapnea faster than standard oxygen therapy. Studies show that compared to endotracheal intubation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation is associated with a lower risk of nosocomial infection, lower antibiotic use, shorter length of stay in intensive care units and lower mortality. Study found that there were no differences betwen the two setting of non-invasive mechanical ventilation used, Bilevel positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) and Continues positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) in  patients outcomes. However, there are absolute and relative contraindications that must be considered, including the effectiveness of the therapy being insignificant when given too late Conclusion: Noninvasive mechanical ventilation can be considered as the first choice in the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema because of its high clinical effectiveness representing a rescue action for patients not improving with conventional oxygen therapy.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document