• Timothy Liesching, David L Nelson, Karen L Cormier, Andrew Sucov, Kathy Short, Rod Warburton, and Nicholas S Hill.
• Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Massachusetts.
• J Emerg Med. 2014 Jan 1;46(1):130-40.

BackgroundStudies have shown different clinical outcomes of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) from those of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).ObjectiveWe evaluated whether bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) more rapidly improves dyspnea, ventilation, and acidemia without increasing the myocardial infarction (MI) rate compared to continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPAP) in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (APE).MethodsPatients with APE were randomized to either BPAP or CPAP. Vital signs and dyspnea scores were recorded at baseline, 30 min, 1 h, and 3 h. Blood gases were obtained at baseline, 30 min, and 1 h. Patients were monitored for MI, endotracheal intubation (ETI), lengths of stay (LOS), and hospital mortality.ResultsFourteen patients received CPAP and 13 received BPAP. The two groups were similar at baseline (ejection fraction, dyspnea, vital signs, acidemia/oxygenation) and received similar medical treatment. At 30 min, PaO2:FIO2 was improved in the BPAP group compared to baseline (283 vs. 132, p < 0.05) and the CPAP group (283 vs. 189, p < 0.05). Thirty-minute dyspnea scores were lower in the BPAP group compared to the CPAP group (p = 0.05). Fewer BPAP patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission (38% vs. 92%, p < 0.05). There were no differences between groups in MI or ETI rate, LOS, or mortality.ConclusionsCompared to CPAP to treat APE, BPAP more rapidly improves oxygenation and dyspnea scores, and reduces the need for ICU admission. Further, BPAP does not increase MI rate compared to CPAP.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

26 keywords...

hide…