Suppr超能文献

无创通气治疗神经肌肉疾病所致急性呼吸衰竭的方法。与气管插管的比较。

Non-invasive ventilatory approach to treatment of acute respiratory failure in neuromuscular disorders. A comparison with endotracheal intubation.

作者信息

Vianello A, Bevilacqua M, Arcaro G, Gallan F, Serra E

机构信息

Respiratory Pathophysiology Department, City Hospital of Padova, Italy.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2000 Apr;26(4):384-90. doi: 10.1007/s001340051171.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Prospectively to investigate the efficacy of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) combined with cricothyroid "mini-tracheostomy" (CM) as a first-line intervention in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) of neuromuscular origin, in comparison with positive pressure ventilation (PPV) via endotracheal intubation (ETI).

DESIGN

Prospective analysis of the short-term outcomes of 14 non-consecutive patients suffering from ARF of neuromuscular origin who were administered NPPV and comparison with the outcomes of 14 matched historical control patients receiving conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) via ETI.

SETTING

Adult five-bedded respiratory intensive care unit in a university hospital.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Fourteen neuromyopathic patients who developed hypercapnic ARF and were submitted to NPPV (group A) and fourteen matched historical control patients, who were administered PPV via ETI (group B). Seven subjects receiving NPPV also underwent CM.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality during ICU stay and treatment failure were evaluated; treatment failure was defined as death or the need for ETI for the NPPV group and as death or the inability to wean from MV for the control group. Length of stay in the ICU and time to improvement, defined as the time required for a significant relief of dyspnea and neurologic impairment and for correction of arterial blood gases, were also compared.

RESULTS

Intra-hospital mortality and treatment failure were lower in the NPPV group than in the conventional PPV via ETI group (2 vs 8 cases and 4 vs 11 cases, respectively). In addition, the duration of ICU stay for subjects who underwent NPPV was shorter than for patients who were intubated (13.6 +/- 9.7 vs 47.1 +/- 51.9 days). "Mini-tracheostomy" was well tolerated and no significant side effects were encountered. Two patient were excluded from the study because they showed a severe inability to swallow and needed to be intubated to protect the upper airway from the risk of aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in combination with CM may be considered as a safer and more effective alternative to ETI in the treatment of patients with neuromuscular disorders (NMD) who develop ARF and require MV; nevertheless, patient selection remains important, since a significant proportion of neuromyopathic patients might have to be excluded from NPPV because of severe risk of aspiration.

摘要

目的

前瞻性研究无创正压通气(NPPV)联合环甲膜“迷你气管切开术”(CM)作为神经肌肉源性急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)患者一线干预措施的疗效,并与经气管插管(ETI)进行有创正压通气(PPV)相比较。

设计

对14例非连续性神经肌肉源性ARF患者接受NPPV治疗的短期结局进行前瞻性分析,并与14例匹配的接受传统机械通气(MV)的历史对照患者(通过ETI)的结局进行比较。

设置

大学医院的成人五床呼吸重症监护病房。

患者和干预措施

14例发生高碳酸血症性ARF并接受NPPV的神经肌肉病患者(A组)和14例匹配的历史对照患者,通过ETI接受PPV(B组)。7例接受NPPV的患者也接受了CM。

结局指标

评估ICU住院期间的死亡率和治疗失败情况;治疗失败定义为NPPV组死亡或需要ETI,对照组为死亡或无法脱机。还比较了ICU住院时间和改善时间,改善时间定义为呼吸困难和神经功能障碍明显缓解以及动脉血气纠正所需的时间。

结果

NPPV组的院内死亡率和治疗失败率低于经ETI进行传统PPV组(分别为2例对8例和4例对11例)。此外,接受NPPV的患者的ICU住院时间短于插管患者(13.6±9.7天对47.1±51.9天)。“迷你气管切开术”耐受性良好,未出现明显副作用。2例患者因严重吞咽困难且需要插管以保护上呼吸道免受误吸风险而被排除在研究之外。

结论

对于发生ARF且需要MV的神经肌肉疾病(NMD)患者,无创正压通气联合CM可被视为比ETI更安全、更有效的替代方法;然而,患者选择仍然很重要,因为相当一部分神经肌肉病患者可能因误吸风险严重而不得不被排除在NPPV之外。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验