Department of Medical Intensive Care, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Sep 15;184(6):672-9. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201101-0035OC.
The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as an early weaning/extubation technique from mechanical ventilation remains controversial.
To investigate NIV effectiveness as an early weaning/extubation technique in difficult-to-wean patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure (CHRF).
In 13 intensive care units, 208 patients with CHRF intubated for acute respiratory failure (ARF) who failed a first spontaneous breathing trial were randomly assigned to three groups: conventional invasive weaning group (n = 69), extubation followed by standard oxygen therapy (n = 70), or NIV (n = 69). NIV was permitted as rescue therapy for both non-NIV groups if postextubation ARF occurred. Primary endpoint was reintubation within 7 days after extubation. Secondary endpoints were: occurrence of postextubation ARF or death within 7 days after extubation, use of rescue postextubation NIV, weaning time, and patient outcomes.
Reintubation rates were 30, 37, and 32% for invasive weaning, oxygen-therapy, and NIV groups, respectively (P = 0.654). Weaning failure rates, including postextubation ARF, were 54, 71, and 33%, respectively (P < 0.001). Rescue NIV success rates for invasive and oxygen-therapy groups were 45 and 58%, respectively (P = 0.386). By design, intubation duration was 1.5 days longer for the invasive group than in the two others. Apart from a longer weaning time in NIV than in invasive group (2.5 vs. 1.5 d; P = 0.033), no significant outcome difference was observed between groups.
No difference was found in the reintubation rate between the three weaning strategies. NIV decreases the intubation duration and may improve the weaning results in difficult-to-wean patients with CHRF by reducing the risk of postextubation ARF. The benefit of rescue NIV in these patients deserves confirmation.
将无创通气(NIV)作为机械通气撤机/拔管的早期技术仍存在争议。
研究 NIV 作为慢性高碳酸血症性呼吸衰竭(CHRF)患者撤机/拔管困难患者的早期撤机/拔管技术的有效性。
在 13 个重症监护病房中,208 例因急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)而插管的 CHRF 患者在首次自主呼吸试验失败后被随机分为三组:常规有创撤机组(n=69)、拔管后给予标准氧疗(n=70)或 NIV 组(n=69)。如果发生拔管后 ARF,非 NIV 两组均允许使用 NIV 作为抢救治疗。主要终点是拔管后 7 天内再插管。次要终点是:拔管后 7 天内发生 ARF 或死亡、使用拔管后 NIV 抢救、撤机时间和患者结局。
有创撤机、氧疗和 NIV 组的再插管率分别为 30%、37%和 32%(P=0.654)。撤机失败率,包括拔管后 ARF,分别为 54%、71%和 33%(P<0.001)。有创和氧疗组的抢救性 NIV 成功率分别为 45%和 58%(P=0.386)。根据设计,有创组的插管时间比其他两组长 1.5 天。除了 NIV 组的撤机时间比有创组长 2.5 天(1.5 天;P=0.033)外,三组间无显著的结局差异。
三种撤机策略之间的再插管率无差异。NIV 可减少拔管后 ARF 的风险,从而缩短 CHRF 患者的插管时间,并可能改善撤机结果。在这些患者中,抢救性 NIV 的益处需要进一步证实。