Orbital Herniation Associated With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation

CHEST Journal ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 841-843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lazowick ◽  
Thomas J. Meyer ◽  
Mark Pressman ◽  
Donald Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

scholarly journals Comparison of outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in patients with hypoxemia and various APACHE II scores after extubation

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110042
Author(s):  
Xiaoke Shang ◽  
Yanggan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Abdominal Distension ◽  
Apache Ii ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Subgroup Ii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Aims: The study aimed to compare and analyze the outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) who had extubation after weaning from mechanical ventilation. Methods: A total 120 patients with AHRF were enrolled into this study. These patients underwent tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were organized into two groups according to the score of Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II); group A: APACHE II score <12; group B: 12⩽ APACHE II score <24. Group A had 72 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (36 patients in each subgroup). Group B had 48 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (24 patients in each subgroup). General information, respiratory parameters, endpoint event, and comorbidities of adverse effect were compared and analyzed between the two subgroups. Results: The incidence of abdominal distension was significantly higher in patients treated with NPPV than in those treated with HFNC in group A (19.44% versus 0, p = 0.005) and group B (25% versus 0, p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the HFNC- and NPPV-treated patients in blood pH, oxygenation index, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, respiratory rate, and blood lactic acid concentration in either group ( p > 0.05). Occurrence rate of re-intubation within 72 h of extubation was slightly, but not significantly, higher in NPPV-treated patients ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between HFNC and NPPV in preventing respiratory failure in patients with AHRF with an APACHE II score <24 after extubation. However, HFNC was superior to NPPV with less incidence of abdominal distension. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Respiratory Failure due to Severe Acute Pancreatitis

Respiration ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Jaber ◽  
Gérald Chanques ◽  
Mustapha Sebbane ◽  
Farida Salhi ◽  
Jean-Marc Delay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure

Comparative study between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with respiratory failure

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed N Al Shafi'i ◽  
Doaa M. Kamal El-din ◽  
Mohammed A. Abdulnaiem Ismaiel ◽  
Hesham M Abotiba
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been increasingly used in the management of respiratory failure in intensive care unit (ICU). Aim of the Work is to compare the efficacy and resource consumption of NIPPMV delivered through face mask against invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) delivered by endotracheal tube in the management of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Patients and Methods This prospective randomized controlled study included 78 adults with acute respiratory failure who were admitted to the intensive care unit. The enrolled patients were randomly allocated to receive either noninvasive ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). Results Severity of illness, measured by the simplified acute physiologic score 3 (SAPS 3), were comparable between the two patient groups with no significant difference between them. Both study groups showed a comparable steady improvement in PaO2:FiO2 values, indicating that NIPPV is as effective as CMV in improving the oxygenation of patients with ARF. The PaCO2 and pH values gradually improved in both groups during the 48 hours of ventilation. 12 hours after ventilation, NIPPMV group showed significantly more improvement in PaCO2 and pH than the CMV group. The respiratory acidosis was corrected in the NIPPV group after 24 hours of ventilation compared with 36 hours in the CMV group. NIPPV in this study was associated with a lower frequency of complications than CMV, including ventilator acquired pneumonia (VAP), sepsis, renal failure, pulmonary embolism, and pancreatitis. However, only VAP showed a statistically significant difference. Patients who underwent NIPPV in this study had lower mortality, and lower ventilation time and length of ICU stay, compared with patients on CMV. Intubation was required for less than a third of patients who initially underwent NIV. Conclusion Based on our study findings, NIPPV appears to be a potentially effective and safe therapeutic modality for managing patients with ARF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document