Protocol-based noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure.

PURPOSE

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been suggested to be associated with adverse outcomes in emergency patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF), possibly because of a delay in tracheal intubation (TI). We hypothesized that protocol-based NPPV (pNPPV) might improve the outcomes, compared with individual physician-directed NPPV (iNPPV).

METHODS

To guide decision making regarding the use of NPPV, we developed an NPPV protocol. Observational data were collected before and after protocol implementation in consecutive patients with ARF and compared between the pNPPV and the iNPPV groups.

RESULTS

The results for pNPPV (n = 37) were compared with those for iNPPV (n = 37). No significant baseline differences in patient characteristics were observed between the two groups except for mean age, which was higher in the pNPPV group than in the iNPPV group (P = 0.02). Rate of TI and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar in the two groups. However, the time from the start of NPPV until TI tended to be shorter in the pNPPV group than in the iNPPV group (P = 0.11). The hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in the pNPPV group than in the iNPPV group (P = 0.049). Although the length of hospital stay was shorter in the pNPPV group than in the iNPPV group, this trend did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that pNPPV is effective and likely to improve the mortality rate of emergency patients with ARF.