• Mark Pluym, Asad Waseem Kabir, and Ashraf Gohar.
• a Internal Medicine , University of Missouri Kansas City , Kansas City , MO , USA.
• Hosp Pract (1995). 2015 Jan 1; 43 (5): 299-307.

AbstractNoninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is an important tool in the management of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Traditionally, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) have been the most commonly utilized modes for these purposes. Newer hybrid modes of NPPV, such as average volume-assured pressure support (VAPS), combine the properties of both volume- and pressure-controlled NPPV and represent another tool in the treatment of acute and chronic respiratory failure. Evidence demonstrating the superiority of VAPS over BPAP is sparse, but there have been studies that have demonstrated comparable efficacy between the two modes. The use of VAPS in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure has shown better clearance of CO2 compared to BPAP, due to its property of delivering a more assured tidal volume. This, however, did not lead to a decrease in hospital-days or improved mortality, relative to BPAP. The studies evaluating VAPS for chronic respiratory failure involve small sample sizes but have shown some promise. The benefits noted with VAPS, however, did not translate into increased survival, decreased hospitalizations or improved quality of life compared to BPAP. The limited evidence available suggests that VAPS is equally effective in treating acute and chronic respiratory failure compared to BPAP. Overall, the evidence to suggest superiority of one mode over the other is lacking. There is a need for larger studies before firm conclusions can be made.

22 keywords...

hide…