Antonaglia Vittorio, Lucangelo Umberto, Zin Walter A, Peratoner Alberto, De Simoni Loredana, Capitanio Guido, Pascotto Sara, Gullo Antonino
Department of Perioperative Medicine, Intensive Care and Emergency, Cattinara Hospital, Trieste University School of Medicine, Trieste, Italy.
Crit Care Med. 2006 Dec;34(12):2940-5. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000248725.15189.7D.
To evaluate the effect of intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) by mouthpiece during noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation with helmet in patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Randomized clinical trial.
General intensive care unit, university hospital.
Forty patients with exacerbation of COPD ventilated with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation by helmet were randomized to two different mucus clearance strategies: IPV (IPV group) vs. respiratory physiotherapy (Phys group). As historical control group, 40 patients receiving noninvasive positive pressure and ventilated by face mask treated with respiratory physiotherapy were studied.
Two daily sessions of IPV (IPV group) or conventional respiratory physiotherapy (Phys group).
Physiologic variables were measured at entry in the intensive care unit, before and after the first session of IPV, and at discharge from the intensive care unit. Outcome variables (need for intubation, ventilatory assistance, length of intensive care unit stay, and complications) were also measured. All physiologic variables improved after IPV. At discharge from the intensive care unit, Paco2 was lower in the IPV group compared with the Phys and control groups (mean +/- sd, 58 +/- 5.4 vs. 64 +/- 5.2 mm Hg, 67.4 +/- 4.2 mm Hg, p < .01). Pao2/Fio2 was higher in IPV (274 +/- 15) than the other groups (Phys, 218 +/- 34; control, 237 +/- 20; p < .01). In the IPV group, time of noninvasive ventilation (hrs) (median, 25th-75th percentile: 61, 60-71) and length of stay in the intensive care unit (days) (7, 6-8) were lower than other groups (Phys, 89, 82-96; control, 87, 75-91; p < .01; and Phys, 9, 8-9; control, 10, 9-11; p < .01).
IPV treatment was feasible for all patients. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation by helmet associated with IPV reduces the duration of ventilatory treatment and intensive care unit stay and improves gas exchange at discharge from intensive care unit in patients with severe exacerbation of COPD.
评估在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)加重期患者中,经面罩进行肺内叩击通气(IPV)联合头盔无创正压通气的效果。
随机临床试验。
大学医院的综合重症监护病房。
40例因COPD加重而接受头盔无创正压通气的患者被随机分为两种不同的痰液清除策略组:IPV组(IPV组)和呼吸物理治疗组(物理治疗组)。作为历史对照组,研究了40例接受无创正压通气并通过面罩通气且接受呼吸物理治疗的患者。
IPV组每天进行两次IPV治疗,物理治疗组进行传统呼吸物理治疗。
在重症监护病房入院时、首次IPV治疗前后以及重症监护病房出院时测量生理变量。还测量了结局变量(插管需求、通气支持、重症监护病房住院时间和并发症)。IPV治疗后所有生理变量均有改善。在重症监护病房出院时,IPV组的动脉血二氧化碳分压(Paco2)低于物理治疗组和对照组(均值±标准差,58±5.4 vs. 64±5.2 mmHg,67.4±4.2 mmHg,p <.01)。IPV组的动脉血氧分压/吸入氧分数值(Pao2/Fio2)高于其他组(物理治疗组,218±34;对照组,237±20;p <.01)。IPV组的无创通气时间(小时)(中位数,第25-75百分位数:61,60-71)和重症监护病房住院时间(天)(7,6-8)低于其他组(物理治疗组,89,82-96;对照组,87,75-91;p <.01;物理治疗组,9,8-9;对照组,10,9-11;p <.01)。
IPV治疗对所有患者均可行。头盔无创正压通气联合IPV可缩短通气治疗时间和重症监护病房住院时间,并改善重度COPD加重期患者重症监护病房出院时的气体交换。