Noninvasive mechanical ventilation via face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure who refused endotracheal intubation

1994 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 1584-1590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umberto G. Meduri ◽  
Roy C. Fox ◽  
Nabil Abou-Shala ◽  
Kenneth V. Leeper ◽  
Richard G. Wunderink
PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0250063
Author(s):  
Shukun Hong ◽  
Hongye Wang ◽  
Yonggang Tian ◽  
Lujun Qiao

Objective To compare the safety and effectiveness between helmet and face mask noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods English databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Chinese databases involved Wanfang Data, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Chinese Biological Medicine Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing helmet and face mask NIMV for patients with ARF were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using Review manager 5.1.0. Results Twelve trials with a total of 569 patients were eligible. Our meta-analysis showed that, comparing with face mask, helmet could significantly decrease the incidences of intolerance [risk ratio (RR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09−0.39], facial skin ulcer (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08−0.43) and aerophagia (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06−0.37), reduce respiratory rate [mean difference (MD) -3.10; 95% CI -4.85 to -1.34], intubation rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26−0.59) and hospital mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39−0.99) in patients with ARF, and improve oxygenation index in patients with hypoxemic ARF (MD 55.23; 95% CI 31.37−79.09). However, subgroupanalysis for hypercapnic ARF revealed that PaCO2 was significantly reduced in face mask group compared with helmet group (MD 5.34; 95% CI 3.41−7.27). Conclusion NIMV with helmet can improve the patient’s tolerance, reduce adverse events, increase oxygenation effect, and decrease intubation rate and hospital mortality comparing to face mask. However, the low number of patients from included studies may preclude strong conclusions. Large RCTs are still needed to provide more robust evidence.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Hidalgo ◽  
C Giugliano-Jaramillo ◽  
R Pérez ◽  
F Cerpa ◽  
H Budini ◽  
...  

Physiotherapist in Chile and Respiratory Therapist worldwide are the professionals who are experts in respiratory care, in mechanical ventilation (MV), pathophysiology and connection and disconnection criteria. They should be experts in every aspect of the acute respiratory failure and its management, they and are the ones who in medical units are able to resolve doubts about ventilation and the setting of the ventilator. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation should be the first-line of treatment in acute respiratory failure, and the standard of care in severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and in immunosuppressed patients with high levels of evidence that support the work of physiotherapist. Exist other considerations where most of the time, physicians and other professionals in the critical units do not take into account when checking the patient ventilator synchrony, such as the appropriate patient selection, ventilator selection, mask selection, mode selection, and the selection of a trained team in NIMV. The physiotherapist needs to evaluate bedside; if patients are properly connected to the ventilator and in a synchronously manner. In Chile, since 2004, the physioterapist are included in the guidelines as a professional resource in the ICU organization, with the same skills and obligations as those described in the literature for respiratory therapists.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document