scholarly journals Pulmonary Barotrauma in COVID-19 Patients With ARDS on Invasive and Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation

2021 ◽  
pp. 088506662110197
Author(s):  
Kartikeya Rajdev ◽  
Alan J. Spanel ◽  
Sean McMillan ◽  
Shubham Lahan ◽  
Brian Boer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Pulmonary Barotrauma ◽  
Invasive Group ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
High Incidence

Background: We experienced a high incidence of pulmonary barotrauma among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at our institution. In current study, we sought to estimate the incidence, clinical outcomes, and characteristics of barotrauma among COVID-19 patients receiving invasive and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Methodology: We conducted this retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and requiring oxygen support or positive airway pressure for ARDS who presented to our tertiary care center from March through November, 2020. Results: A total of 353 patients met our inclusion criteria, of which 232patients who required heated high-flow nasal cannula, continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure were assigned to non-invasive group. The remaining 121 patients required invasive mechanical ventilation and were assigned to invasive group. Of the 353 patients, 32 patients (65.6% males) with a mean age of 63 ± 11 years developed barotrauma in the form of either subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, or pneumomediastinum. The incidence of barotrauma was 4.74% (11/232) and 17.35% (21/121) in non-invasive group and invasive group, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 22 (15.7 −33.0) days with an overall mortality of 62.5% (n = 20). Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 ARDS have a high incidence rate of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma should be considered in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who exhibit worsening of their respiratory disease as it is likely associated with a high mortality risk. Utilizing lung-protective ventilation strategies may reduce the risk of barotrauma.

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.

scholarly journals Oxygenation failure after cardiac surgery: early re-intubation versus treatment by nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV)

2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Kurt ◽  
Udo Boeken ◽  
Jens Litmathe ◽  
Peter Feindt ◽  
Emmeran Gams
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Transfer ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Due to an increasing incidence of respiratory failure after cardiac surgery we wanted to study whether nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) may improve pulmonary oxygen transfer and may avoid reintubation after coronary operations. Additionally, we compared this protocol to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). Methods: For a period of 2 years we analyzed all patients that were extubated within 12 hours after coronary surgery, and in whom oxygen transfer (PaO2/FIO2) deteriorated without hypercapnia so that all these patients met predefined criteria for reintubation: group A=immediate reintubation (n=88), group B=NCPAP-treatment (n=173), group C=NPPV(n=18). Results: 25,4% of group B- and 22,2% of group C-patients were also intubated after a period of NCPAP or NPPV. All other patients of groups B and C could be weaned from these devices (B = 34.3 ± 5.9 hours; C = 26.4 ± 4.4 h; p&lt;0.05) and were well oxygenated by face mask at ambient pressure (Ratio PaO2/FIO2: B, 138 ± 13; C, 140 ± 13). In group A we found a higher mortality (7.95%) compared to group B (4.04%) and group C (5.55%). NCPAP-patients suffered more frequently from an impaired sternal wound healing (A = 4.5%, B = 8.6%; p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: We conclude that reintubation after cardiac operations should be avoided since NCPAP and NPPV are safe and effective to improve arterial oxygenation in most patients with non hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document