Masip Josep
Hospital Dos de Maig, Consorci Sanitari Integral, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008 Oct;14(5):531-5. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32830c4862.
Patients with acute pulmonary edema are often treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). There are essentially two modalities used in this setting: continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel pressure support ventilation. The clinical impact of these techniques and the subset of patients who can benefit from their application have not been definitely established.
The main advantage of the use of NIV in patients with severe acute pulmonary edema is to avoid intubation by more effectively decreasing respiratory distress with respect to conventional oxygen therapy. These beneficial effects were demonstrated in three meta-analyses including nearly 900 patients. Although neither technique was superior to the other in the comparative analysis, a tendency to reduce hospital mortality was observed, which was statistically significant for continuous positive airway pressure. However, unpublished data from a large multicenter trial comparing both modalities of NIV to conventional treatment in emergency departments did not confirm these results. Recent research has pointed out a clear advantage when the treatment is initiated early in the prehospital setting.
Although in acute pulmonary edema NIV is more effective in improving respiratory distress than conventional oxygen therapy and reduces the necessity of intubation, the subset of patients who can best benefit from these techniques in terms of mortality still warrant further investigation.
急性肺水肿患者常采用无创通气(NIV)治疗。在此情况下主要使用两种模式:持续气道正压通气和双水平压力支持通气。这些技术的临床影响以及能从其应用中获益的患者亚组尚未明确确定。
在重症急性肺水肿患者中使用NIV的主要优势在于,相对于传统氧疗,能更有效地减轻呼吸窘迫,从而避免插管。三项纳入近900例患者的荟萃分析证实了这些有益效果。尽管在对比分析中两种技术均未显示出优于对方,但观察到有降低医院死亡率的趋势,持续气道正压通气在统计学上具有显著意义。然而,一项比较NIV两种模式与急诊科传统治疗的大型多中心试验的未发表数据并未证实这些结果。近期研究指出,在院前环境中早期开始治疗具有明显优势。
尽管在急性肺水肿中,NIV在改善呼吸窘迫方面比传统氧疗更有效,并减少了插管的必要性,但就死亡率而言,能从这些技术中最大程度获益的患者亚组仍需进一步研究。