• Antonio Pagano, Fabio G Numis, Valerio Rosato, Teresa Russo, Giovanni Porta, Giorgio Bosso, Claudia Serra, Mario Masarone, Giuseppe Visone, and Fiorella Paladino.
• Emergency Department, Cardarelli Hospital, Via Cardarelli 9, Naples, 80131, Italy. Electronic address: antonio.pagano@aslnapoli2nord.it.
• Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2018 Sep 1; 255: 7-10.

AbstractNon-invasive ventilation is usually adopted as a support to medical therapy in patients with acute pulmonary edema, but which modality between Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) has better favourable effects is not been yet well known. Aim of this observational study was to provide data on these different non-invasive ventilation modalities in the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. One-hundred-fifty-three patients consecutively admitted to the Emergency Room of two different Center were enrolled and randomly assigned to CPAP or PSV. Data relative to mortality, need of endotracheal intubation, sequential blood gas analysis were compared. Furthermore, there were no significant differences regarding mortality in the two groups, but patients treated with PSV had a significant lower rate of endotracheal intubation and a higher improvement of blood gas analyses parameters. In conclusion, our data support only a slight advantage in favour to PSV versus CPAP.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

29 keywords...

hide…