• M W Elliott, M Confalonieri, and S Nava.
• St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK. mark_w.elliott@leedsth.NHS.UK
• Eur. Respir. J. 2002 Jun 1; 19 (6): 1159-66.

AbstractNoninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been shown to be a means of reducing the need for endotracheal intubation, which when effective reduces the complication rate and improves outcome. Because paralysis and sedation are not needed and because the patient is not necessarily dependent upon a machine for respiration, ventilation outside the intensive care unit (ICU) is an option. A number of studies have shown that NPPV for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be effective in the non-ICU environment, though usually in patients with less severe exacerbations. However, there have been no direct comparisons of the application of NPPV in different locations. The likelihood of success of the technique is an important factor in deciding there NPPV should be performed. Ready access to invasive ventilation is important when NPPV is not indicated from the outset or fails after an initial trial. In acute exacerbations of COPD, NPPV is less likely to be successful the more severe the exacerbation, as measured by the severity of acidosis. Good tolerance of NPPV, which translates into an improvement in pH and a fall in respiratory rate, predicts a successful outcome and is a useful way of monitoring progress. NPPV has been shown to be cost effective both in the ICU and when performed on general wards. A dedicated intermediate care unit with particular expertise in noninvasive modes of ventilation may provide the best environment, both in terms of outcome, but also cost effectiveness. The ideal location for noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation will vary from country to country and indeed from hospital to hospital, depending upon local factors. However, the most important factor is that staff be adequately trained in the technique and be available throughout the 24-h period.

7 keywords...

hide…