McGill University, Quebec, Canada.
Respiratory Epidemiology Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute and Critical Care Medicine, SMBD-Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Crit Care. 2015 Feb;30(1):49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.09.021. Epub 2014 Oct 2.
Despite the increasing use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of critically ill patients with respiratory failure, its role in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the use of NIV in patients with CAP requiring ventilation who are admitted an intensive care unit.
A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted to 3 tertiary care, university-affiliated, intensive care units from January 2007 to January 2012 with the principal diagnosis of CAP and requiring positive pressure ventilation was carried out. The primary outcome was acute hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed to assess the association between mode of ventilation and death as well as factors associated with failure of NIV.
A total of 229 patients were admitted, with 20 patients excluded from the analysis because of do-not-resuscitate orders. Fifty-six percent of patients were initially treated with NIV. Of those, 76% failed NIV and required intubation and invasive ventilation. After adjusting for confounders, no difference in mortality was seen between patients who received NIV as first-line therapy in comparison with patients who received invasive ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-3.28; P = .17). Multivariable analysis demonstrated a trend toward increased NIV failure for the patients who had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores (P = .07) and vasopressor use at 2 hours after initiation of positive pressure ventilation (OR, 7.5; 95% CI, 1.8-31.3, P = .006). In an adjusted analysis, patients who failed NIV had an increased odds of death when compared with patients who were treated with invasive ventilation (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.0-4.8; P = .03).
Noninvasive pressure ventilation is frequently used in CAP but is associated with high failure rates. Mortality was not improved in the group of patients who received NIV as first-line therapy despite clinical characteristics that might have suggested a more favorable prognosis. Given the high rates of NIV use, high failure rates, and the hypothesis generating nature of the data in this study, further randomized studies are needed to better delineate the role of NIV in CAP.
尽管无创正压通气(NIV)在治疗危重症呼吸衰竭患者中的应用越来越多,但它在治疗严重社区获得性肺炎(CAP)中的作用仍存在争议。本研究旨在评估在需要通气的 CAP 患者中使用 NIV 的效果,这些患者被收入重症监护病房。
对 2007 年 1 月至 2012 年 1 月期间因 CAP 且需要正压通气而连续收入 3 所三级护理、大学附属重症监护病房的所有患者进行回顾性队列研究。主要结局为急性住院死亡率。采用单变量和多变量分析评估通气方式与死亡之间的关系以及与 NIV 失败相关的因素。
共纳入 229 例患者,其中 20 例因不复苏医嘱而被排除在分析之外。56%的患者最初接受 NIV 治疗。其中,76%的患者 NIV 治疗失败,需要插管和有创通气。在调整混杂因素后,与接受有创通气的患者相比,接受 NIV 作为一线治疗的患者死亡率无差异(比值比[OR],1.63;95%置信区间[CI],0.81-3.28;P=0.17)。多变量分析显示,APACHE II 评分较高(P=0.07)和在开始正压通气后 2 小时使用血管加压药的患者 NIV 失败的趋势增加(OR,7.5;95%CI,1.8-31.3,P=0.006)。在调整分析中,与接受有创通气的患者相比,NIV 治疗失败的患者死亡的可能性增加(OR,2.2;95%CI,1.0-4.8;P=0.03)。
NIV 在 CAP 中经常被使用,但失败率较高。尽管临床特征可能提示预后较好,但接受 NIV 作为一线治疗的患者死亡率并未改善。鉴于 NIV 使用率高、失败率高以及本研究数据的假设生成性质,需要进一步的随机研究来更好地确定 NIV 在 CAP 中的作用。