Dataset Information

Survival and end-of-life aspects among subjects on long-term noninvasive ventilation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The need for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is commonly considered a predictor of poor survival, but life expectancy may vary depending on the underlying disease. We studied the factors associated with decreased survival and end-of-life characteristics in an unselected population of subjects starting NIV.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study including 205 subjects initiating NIV from 1/1/2012-31/12/2015 who were followed up until 31/12/2017.

Results

The median survival time was shorter in subjects needing help with activities of daily living than in independent subjects (hazard ratio (HR) for death 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.6, P = 0.008) and was also shorter in subjects on long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) than in those not on LTOT (HR for death 2.8, 95% CI 1.9-4.3, P < 0.001). There was marked difference in survival according to the disease necessitating NIV, and subjects with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or interstitial lung disease seemed to have the shortest survival. The two most common diseases resulting in the need for NIV were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS). The median survival time was 4.4 years in COPD subjects, but the median survival time was not reached in subjects with OHS (HR for death COPD vs. OHS: 3.2, 95% CI 1.9-5.5, P < 0.001). Most of the deceased subjects (55.6%) died in the hospital, while only 20.0% died at home. The last hospitalization admission leading to death occurred through the emergency room in 44.4% of the subjects.

Conclusions

Survival among subjects starting NIV in this real-life study varied greatly depending on the disease and degree of functional impairment. Subjects frequently died in the hospital after admission through the emergency department. A comprehensive treatment approach with timely advance care planning is therefore needed, especially for those needing help with activities of daily living and those with both NIV and LTOT.

SUBMITTER: Rantala HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7646568 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLong-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment.ResultsAmong 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47-77] of predicted vs. 80% [71-88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53-70] vs. 80 [70-83], p = 0.01).ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020.