Clínica Medellín y Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia.
Intensive Care Med. 2010 May;36(5):817-27. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1837-1. Epub 2010 Mar 13.
To compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) or biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) to assist-control ventilation (A/C) as their primary mode of ventilatory support. The objective was to estimate if patients ventilated with APRV/BIPAP have a lower mortality.
Secondary analysis of an observational study in 349 intensive care units from 23 countries. A total of 234 patients were included who were ventilated only with APRV/BIPAP and 1,228 patients who were ventilated only with A/C. A case-matched analysis according to a propensity score was used to make comparisons between groups.
In logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the use of APRV/BIPAP was the country (196 of 234 patients were from German units). Patients with coma or congestive heart failure as the reason to start mechanical ventilation, pH <7.15 prior to mechanical ventilation, and patients who developed respiratory failure (SOFA score >2) after intubation with or without criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome were less likely to be ventilated with APRV/BIPAP. In the case-matched analysis there were no differences in outcomes, including mortality in the intensive care unit, days of mechanical ventilation or weaning, rate of reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, and mortality in the hospital.
In this study, the APRV/BIPAP ventilation mode is being used widely across many causes of respiratory failure, but only in selected geographic areas. In our patient population we could not demonstrate any improvement in outcomes with APRV/BIPAP compared with assist-control ventilation.
比较接受气道压力释放通气(APRV)或双相气道正压通气(BIPAP)与辅助控制通气(A/C)作为主要通气支持模式的患者的特征和临床结局。目的是估计使用 APRV/BIPAP 通气的患者死亡率是否较低。
对来自 23 个国家的 349 个重症监护病房的观察性研究进行二次分析。共纳入 234 例仅接受 APRV/BIPAP 通气的患者和 1228 例仅接受 A/C 通气的患者。采用倾向评分匹配分析对两组进行比较。
在逻辑回归分析中,与使用 APRV/BIPAP 相关的最重要因素是国家(234 例患者中有 196 例来自德国的单位)。因昏迷或充血性心力衰竭开始机械通气、机械通气前 pH 值<7.15 以及在插管后出现呼吸衰竭(SOFA 评分>2)而无或有急性呼吸窘迫综合征标准的患者不太可能接受 APRV/BIPAP 通气。在病例匹配分析中,包括 ICU 死亡率、机械通气或撤机天数、再插管率、ICU 住院时间、住院时间和住院死亡率在内的结局没有差异。
在这项研究中,APRV/BIPAP 通气模式在许多呼吸衰竭的病因中广泛使用,但仅在特定地理区域使用。在我们的患者人群中,与辅助控制通气相比,APRV/BIPAP 并未显示出任何改善结局的优势。