• Nisha K Rathi, Sajid A Haque, Ron Nates, Alyssa Kosturakis, Hao Wang, Wenli Dong, Lei Feng, Rose J Erfe, Christina Guajardo, Laura Withers, Clarence Finch, Kristen J Price, and Joseph L Nates.
• Department of Critical Care, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: nrathi@mdanderson.org.
• J Crit Care. 2017 Jun 1; 39: 56-61.

PurposeThe objective was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of critically ill cancer patients who received noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) vs invasive mechanical ventilation as first-line therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Material And MethodsA retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult intensive care unit (ICU) cancer patients who received either conventional invasive mechanical ventilation or NIPPV as first-line therapy for hypoxemic respiratory failure.ResultsOf the 1614 patients included, the NIPPV failure group had the greatest hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, ICU mortality (71.3%), and hospital mortality (79.5%) as compared with the other 2 groups (P < .0001). The variables independently associated with NIPPV failure included younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-0.99; P=.031), non-Caucasian race (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.26; P=.006), presence of a hematologic malignancy (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.64; P=.0003), and a higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.17; P < .0001). There was no difference in mortality when comparing early vs late intubation (less than or greater than 24 or 48 hours) for the NIPPV failure group.ConclusionNoninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure is an independent risk factor for ICU mortality, but NIPPV patients who avoided intubation had the best outcomes compared with the other groups. Early vs late intubation did not have a significant impact on outcomes.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

28 keywords...

hide…