scholarly journals The use of positive expiratory pressure therapy does not appear to be effective in people hospitalised with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD)

2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Kylie Hill
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pressure Therapy ◽  
Positive Expiratory Pressure

Invasive-noninvasive Sequential Ventilation for the Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-168
Author(s):  
Jian-Da Huang ◽  
Tong-Jie Gu ◽  
Zhi-Lin Hu ◽  
Dan-Fei Zhou ◽  
Jun Ying
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Acute Exacerbation ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Relative Risks

Background: The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of invasivenoninvasive sequential ventilation versus invasive ventilation in the treatment of Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (AECOPD). Method: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Wanfang, CNKI, VIP database were searched by the index words to identify the qualified RCTs, and relevant literature sources were also searched. The latest research was conducted in June 2017. Relative Risks (RR), and Mean Difference (MD) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to analyze the main outcomes. Result: Twenty-nine RCTs were involved in this analysis of 1061 patients in the invasivenoninvasive sequential ventilation group (In-non group) and 1074 patients in the invasive ventilation group (In group). The results indicated that compared with the invasive ventilation, invasive-noninvasive sequential ventilation would significantly decrease the incidence of VAP (RR:0.20, 95%CI: 0.16-0.26), mortality (RR:0.38, 95%CI: 0.26-0.55), reintubation (RR:0.39, 95%CI: 0.27-0.55); and statistically reduced the duration of invasive ventilation (MD:-9.23, 95%CI: -10.65, -7.82), the total duration of mechanical ventilation (MD:-4.91, 95%CI: -5.99, -3.83), and the length of stay in the ICU (MD:-5.10, 95%CI: -5.43, -4.76). Conclusion: The results demonstrated that the application of noninvasive sequential ventilation after invasive ventilation at the pulmonary infection control window has a significant influence on VAP incidence, mortality, and the length of stay in the ICU, but further well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required to validate the conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document