Dataset Information

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in subjects with stable COPD: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: The use of domiciliary noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure has yielded variable effects on survival, quality of life, and dyspnea. We hypothesized that use of NPPV in stable COPD and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) <52 mmHg might result in improvement in quality of life and dyspnea.Thirty patients with stable COPD (forced expiratory volume in the first second <50% predicted and PaCO2 <52 mmHg) were prospectively randomized to receive domiciliary NPPV (bilevel positive airway pressure, 15/5 cm H2O) or usual therapy for 6 months. Measurements were made at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Primary outcomes were quality of life as assessed by the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), and dyspnea as measured by the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI).Fifteen subjects in the NPPV arm and 12 controls completed all the study visits. At 6 weeks and 3 months, the NPPV arm showed significant improvement in TDI total score. However, this effect persisted only in the TDI-Task at 6 months (P=0.03). NPPV use was associated with a small improvement in the CRQ-Mastery domain (0.6 versus -0.1, P=0.04). The arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) in the control arm worsened over the period of the study, whereas it remained stable in the NPPV arm (change -7.2 mmHg versus +2.1 mmHg, respectively, P=0.02).NPPV resulted in a small improvement in quality of life indices in stable COPD patients with PaCO2 <52 mmHg. Future larger studies will clarify the role of NPPV in this stable subgroup of patients with COPD.

SUBMITTER: Bhatt SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3842217 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe benefits of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in patients with hypercapnic COPD are controversial. It is presumed that methodology and appropriate use of NIV ventilator might be crucial for the outcomes. With the new built-in software, the performance of NIV can be monitored at home, which can guarantee the compliance and appropriate use. This study investigated effects of home use of NIV in hypercapnia in COPD patients using the NIV ventilator with built-in software for monitoring.MethodsThe current multicenter prospective, randomized, controlled trial enrolled patients with stable GOLD stages III and IV hypercapnic COPD. Patients were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomization sequence, with a block size of four patients, to continue optimized treatment (control group) or to receive additional NPPV (intervention group) for 3 months. The primary outcome was arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2). Data were derived from built-in software and analyzed every 4 weeks. Analysis was carried out with the intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02499718.ResultsPatients were recruited from 20 respiratory units in China from October 1, 2015, and recruitment was terminated with a record of the vital statistics on May 31, 2016. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to the NPPV group (n=57) or the control group (n=58). Patients complied well with NPPV therapy (mean [± standard deviation] day use 5.6±1.4 h). The mean estimation of leaks was 37.99±13.71 L/min. The changes in PaCO2 (-10.41±0.97 vs -4.32±0.68 mmHg, P=0.03) and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) (38.2% vs 18.2%, P=0.02) were statistically significant in the NPPV group versus the control group. COPD assessment test (CAT) showed a positive trend (P=0.06) in favor of the NPPV group. Pulmonary function and dyspnea were not different between groups.ConclusionVentilators equipped with built-in software provided methodology for monitoring NIV use at home, which could facilitate the improvement of compliance and quality control of NIV use. It was shown that three months use of NIV at home could reduce the PaCO2 and improve exercise tolerance (6MWD) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients.

Project description:High-intensity (high-pressure and high backup rate) noninvasive ventilation has recently been advocated for the management of stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the relative contributions of high inspiratory pressure and high backup rate to ventilator adherence and physiological outcome have not been investigated.Patients with stable hypercapnic COPD (daytime PaCO(2) > 6 kPa) and nocturnal hypoventilation were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to high-pressure and high backup rate (high-intensity) and high-pressure and low backup rate (high-pressure) for a 6-week period. At the end of the first treatment period, patients were switched to the alternative treatment. The primary outcome measure was mean nightly ventilator usage.Twelve patients were recruited, with seven completing the 12-week trial protocol. The mean patient age was 71 ± 8 years, with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) of 50% ± 13% and FEV(1) of 32% ± 12%. The baseline PaCO(2) and PaO(2) were 8.6 ± 1.7 kPa and 7.3 ± 1.4 kPa, respectively. There was no significant difference demonstrated in mean nightly ventilator usage between the high-intensity and high-pressure groups (difference of 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval -45 to 53; P = 0.9). Furthermore, there were no differences in any of the secondary endpoints, with the exception of the respiratory domain of the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency questionnaire, which was lower in the high-intensity arm than in the high-pressure arm (57 ± 11 versus 69 ± 16; P < 0.05).There was no additional benefit, in terms of night-time ventilator adherence or any of the other measured parameters, demonstrated by addition of a high backup rate to high-pressure noninvasive ventilation. These data suggest that it is the high-pressure component of the high-intensity noninvasive ventilation approach that plays the important therapeutic role in the management of hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Various noninvasive respiratory support modalities are available in neonatal critical care in order to minimize invasive ventilation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the more commonly used but noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) seems more efficacious in the early post-extubation phase, although it is not clear if NIPPV may influence longterm outcomes. A recently introduced alternative is noninvasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) which might be especially useful in babies needing high constant distending pressure. Preterm neonates may receive these respiratory supports for several weeks. Nonetheless, no data are available for the longterm use of NIPPV and NHFOV; few data exist on NHFOV and clinical outcomes, although its safety and suitability are reported in a number of preliminary short-term studies. METHODS:We designed an assessor-blinded, multicenter, three-arms, parallel, pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial with a superiority design, investigating the use of CPAP vs NIPPV vs NHFOV during the whole stay in neonatal intensive care units in China. Since safety data will also be analyzed it may be considered a phase II/III trial. Moreover, subgroup analyses will be performed on patients according to prespecified criteria based on physiopathology traits: these subgroup analyses should be considered preliminary. At least 1440 neonates are supposed to be enrolled. The trial has been designed with the collaboration of international colleagues expert in NHFOV, who will also perform an interim analysis at the about 50% of the enrolment. DISCUSSION:The study is applying the best trial methodology to neonatal ventilation, a field where it is often difficult to do so for practical reasons. Nonetheless, ours is also a physiology-driven trial, since interventions are applied based on physiological perspective, in order to use ventilatory techniques at their best. The pragmatic design will increase generalizability of our results but subgroup analyses according to predefined physiopathological criteria are also previewed trying to have some advantages of an explanatory design. Since not all clinicians are well versed in all respiratory techniques, the training is pivotal. We intend to apply particular care to train the participating units: a specific 3-month period and several means have been dedicated to this end. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03181958 (registered on June 9, 2017).

Project description:ImportanceSeveral respiratory support techniques are available to minimize the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in preterm neonates. It is unknown whether noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) is more efficacious than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preterm neonates after their first extubation.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that NHFOV is more efficacious than NCPAP or NIPPV in reducing IMV after extubation and until neonatal intensive care unit discharge among preterm neonates.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, pathophysiology-based, assessor-blinded, 3-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 69 tertiary referral neonatal intensive care units in China, recruiting participants from December 1, 2017, to May 31, 2021. Preterm neonates who were between the gestational age of 25 weeks plus 0 days and 32 weeks plus 6 days and were ready to be extubated were randomized to receive NCPAP, NIPPV or NHFOV. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsThe NCPAP, NIPPV, or NHFOV treatment was initiated after the first extubation and lasted until discharge.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were total duration of IMV, need for reintubation, and ventilator-free days. These outcomes were chosen to describe the effect of noninvasive ventilation strategy on the general need for IMV.ResultsA total of 1440 neonates (mean [SD] age at birth, 29.4 [1.8] weeks; 860 boys [59.7%]) were included in the trial. Duration of IMV was longer in NIPPV (mean difference, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.01-2.3 days; P = .04) and NCPAP (mean difference, 1.5 days; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7 days; P = .01) compared with NHFOV. Neonates who were treated with NCPAP needed reintubations more often than those who were treated with NIPPV (risk difference: 8.1%; 95% CI, 2.9%-13.3%; P = .003) and NHFOV (risk difference, 12.5%; 95% CI, 7.5%-17.4%; P < .001). There were fewer ventilator-free days in neonates treated with NCPAP than in those treated with NIPPV (median [25th-75th percentile] difference, -3 [-6 to -1] days; P = .01). There were no differences between secondary efficacy or safety outcomes, except for the use of postnatal corticosteroids (lower in NHFOV than in NCPAP group; risk difference, 7.3%; 95% CI, 2.6%-12%; P = .002), weekly weight gain (higher in NHFOV than in NCPAP group; mean difference, -0.9 g/d; 95% CI, -1.8 to 0 g/d; P = .04), and duration of study intervention (shorter in NHFOV than in NIPPV group; median [25th-75th percentile] difference, -1 [-3 to 0] days; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this trial indicated that NHFOV, if used after extubation and until discharge, slightly reduced the duration of IMV in preterm neonates, and both NHFOV and NIPPV resulted in a lower risk of reintubation than NCPAP. All 3 respiratory support techniques were equally safe for this patient population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181958.

Project description:BackgroundWith the growing stress on hospitals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for home-based solutions has become a necessity to support these overwhelmed hospitals.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to compare two nonpharmacological respiratory treatment methods for home-isolated COVID-19 patients using a newly developed telemanagement health care system.MethodsIn this single-blinded randomized clinical trial, 60 patients with stage 1 pneumonia caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection were treated. Group A (n=30) received oxygen therapy with bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation, and Group B (n=30) received osteopathic manipulative respiratory and physical therapy techniques. Arterial blood gases of PaO2 and PaCO2, pH, vital signs (ie, temperature, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure), and chest computed tomography scans were used for follow-up and for assessment of the course and duration of recovery.ResultsAnalysis of the results showed a significant difference between the two groups (P<.05), with Group A showing shorter recovery periods than Group B (mean 14.9, SD 1.7 days, and mean 23.9, SD 2.3 days, respectively). Significant differences were also observed between baseline and final readings in all of the outcome measures in both groups (P<.05). Regarding posttreatment satisfaction with our proposed telemanagement health care system, positive responses were given by most of the patients in both groups.ConclusionsIt was found that home-based oxygen therapy with BiPAP can be a more effective prophylactic treatment approach than osteopathic manipulative respiratory and physical therapy techniques, as it can impede exacerbation of early-stage COVID-19 pneumonia. Telemanagement health care systems are promising methods to help in the pandemic-related shortage of hospital beds, as they showed reasonable effectiveness and reliability in the monitoring and management of patients with early-stage COVID-19 pneumonia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04368923; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368923.

Dataset Information

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in subjects with stable COPD: a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets