• J Hosp Med · Apr 2013

    Comparative Study

    Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute respiratory failure.

    • Chu-Lin Tsai, Wen-Ya Lee, George L Delclos, Nicola A Hanania, and Carlos A Camargo.
    • Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. cltsai@post.harvard.edu
    • J Hosp Med. 2013 Apr 1;8(4):165-72.

    BackgroundLimited evidence exists on the comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) vs invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with respiratory failure.ObjectivesTo characterize the use of NIV and IMV, and to compare the effectiveness of NIV vs IMV in AECOPD.Design And PatientsRetrospective cohort study using data from the 2006-2008 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Emergency department visits for AECOPD with acute respiratory failure were identified with codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification.MeasuresThe outcome measures were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay, hospital charges, and complications.ResultsThere were an estimated 101,000 visits annually for AECOPD with acute respiratory failure; 96% were admitted to the hospital. Of these, NIV use increased from 14% in 2006 to 16% in 2008 (P=0.049). Use of NIV, however, varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 0% to 100% with a median of 11%. Noninvasive ventilation was more often used in higher-case volume, Northeastern hospitals. In a propensity score analysis, NIV use, compared with IMV, was associated with lower inpatient mortality (risk ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.59), shortened hospital length of stay (-3.2 days; 95% CI: -3.4 to -2.9 days), lower hospital charges (-$35,012; 95% CI: -$36,848 to -$33,176), and lower risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax (0.05% vs 0.5%, P<0.001).ConclusionsAlthough NIV use is increasing in US hospitals, its adoption remains low and varies widely between hospitals. Our observational study suggests NIV appears to be more effective and safer than IMV for AECOPD in the real-world setting.Copyright © 2013 Society of Hospital Medicine.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…