Moritz Fabienne, Brousse Benoit, Gellée Bruno, Chajara Abdesslam, L'Her Erwan, Hellot Marie-France, Bénichou Jacques
Service d'Accueil et d'Urgences, CHU de Rouen, Hôpital Charles Nicolle, University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Dec;50(6):666-75, 675.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.06.488. Epub 2007 Aug 30.
Patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema may develop respiratory failure. Noninvasive respiratory support should be initiated rapidly to avoid tracheal intubation. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) delivered by the Boussignac CPAP device and bilevel positive airway pressure (bilevel PAP) in patients with acute respiratory failure caused by acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.
This prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted in 3 emergency departments. Patients were assigned to Boussignac CPAP through a facemask or to bilevel PAP, in addition to standard therapy. The main outcome was a combined criterion (tracheal intubation, death, or acute myocardial infarction). Complications, durations of ventilation, and hospitalization were also assessed.
After 1 hour of ventilation and at the end of the ventilation period, clinical parameters of respiratory distress and blood gas exchange significantly improved in each treatment arm. No significant differences were observed between the Boussignac CPAP and bilevel PAP arms for the combined criterion (5% versus 12%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0 to 1.9) and also for severe complications (9% versus 6%; OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 9.9), duration of ventilation (median for both groups 2 hours; interquartile range [IQR] 1.2 to 3.0 hours), duration of hospitalization (CPAP 8.5 [IQR 6 to 14] days; bilevel PAP 10 [IQR 7 to 16] days), or intrahospital mortality (8% versus 14%; OR 1.8 [IQR 0.4 to 8.8]). Similar results were obtained among hypercapnic patients (PaCO2 >45 mm Hg). Whatever the ventilation support used, the combined criterion and severe complications were more frequently observed among hypercapnic patients.
Both Boussignac CPAP and bilevel PAP appeared effective in rapidly improving respiratory distress even in hypercapnic patients, but they were not different in terms of patient outcome.
急性心源性肺水肿患者可能会发展为呼吸衰竭。应迅速启动无创呼吸支持以避免气管插管。本研究的目的是比较使用布西尼亚克持续气道正压通气(CPAP)装置进行持续气道正压通气(CPAP)与双水平气道正压通气(双水平PAP)对急性心源性肺水肿所致急性呼吸衰竭患者的疗效。
这项前瞻性多中心随机研究在3个急诊科进行。除标准治疗外,患者通过面罩被分配接受布西尼亚克CPAP或双水平PAP治疗。主要结局是一个综合标准(气管插管、死亡或急性心肌梗死)。还评估了并发症、通气时间和住院时间。
通气1小时后及通气结束时,各治疗组的呼吸窘迫临床参数和血气交换均有显著改善。在综合标准方面(分别为5%和12%;优势比[OR]0.4;95%置信区间[CI]0.0至1.9)以及严重并发症方面(9%和6%;OR1.5;95%CI0.3至9.9)、通气时间(两组中位数均为2小时;四分位间距[IQR]1.2至3.0小时)、住院时间(CPAP组8.5[IQR6至14]天;双水平PAP组10[IQR7至16]天)或院内死亡率(8%和14%;OR1.8[IQR0.4至8.8]),布西尼亚克CPAP组和双水平PAP组之间未观察到显著差异。在高碳酸血症患者(动脉血二氧化碳分压>45mmHg)中也得到了类似结果。无论使用何种通气支持,高碳酸血症患者中综合标准和严重并发症的发生率更高。
布西尼亚克CPAP和双水平PAP在迅速改善呼吸窘迫方面似乎均有效,即使在高碳酸血症患者中也是如此,但在患者结局方面两者并无差异。