Fioretto José R, Ribeiro Cristiane F, Carpi Mario F, Bonatto Rossano C, Moraes Marcos A, Fioretto Eduardo B, Fagundes Djalma J
1Departamento de Pediatria, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP-Sao Paulo State University, Botucatu, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 2Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):124-30. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000309.
The effectiveness of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in preventing reintubation due to respiratory failure in children remains uncertain. A pilot study was designed to evaluate the frequency of extubation failure, develop a randomization approach, and analyze the feasibility of a powered randomized trial to compare noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and standard oxygen therapy post extubation for preventing reintubation within 48 hours in children with respiratory failure.
Prospective pilot study.
PICU at a university-affiliated hospital.
Children aged between 28 days and 3 years undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than or equal to 48 hours with respiratory failure after programmed extubation.
Patients were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned into noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation group and inhaled oxygen group after programmed extubation from May 2012 to May 2013.
Length of stay in PICU and hospital, oxygenation index, blood gas before and after tracheal extubation, failure and reason for tracheal extubation, complications, mechanical ventilation variables before tracheal extubation, arterial blood gas, and respiratory and heart rates before and 1 hour after tracheal extubation were analyzed. One hundred eight patients were included (noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation group, n = 55 and inhaled oxygen group, n = 53), with 66 exclusions. Groups did not significantly differ for gender, age, disease severity, Pediatric Risk of Mortality at admission, tracheal intubation, and mechanical ventilation indications. There was no statistically significant difference in reintubation rate (noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation group, 9.1%; inhaled oxygen group, 11.3%; p > 0.05) and length of stay (days) in PICU (noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation group, 3 [1-16]; inhaled oxygen group, 2 [1-25]; p > 0.05) or hospital (noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation group, 19 [7-141]; inhaled oxygen group, 17 [8-80]).
The study indicates that a larger randomized trial comparing noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and standard oxygen therapy in children with respiratory failure is feasible, providing a basis for a future trial in this setting. No differences were seen between groups. The number of excluded patients was high.
无创正压通气在预防儿童因呼吸衰竭而再插管方面的有效性仍不确定。一项初步研究旨在评估拔管失败的频率,制定随机化方法,并分析一项有动力的随机试验的可行性,以比较无创正压通气和标准氧疗在呼吸衰竭儿童拔管后48小时内预防再插管的效果。
前瞻性初步研究。
一所大学附属医院的儿科重症监护病房。
年龄在28天至3岁之间,因呼吸衰竭接受有创机械通气≥48小时,计划拔管后。
2012年5月至2013年5月,患者在计划拔管后被前瞻性纳入并随机分为无创正压通气组和吸氧组。
分析了儿科重症监护病房和医院的住院时间、氧合指数、气管拔管前后的血气、气管拔管失败及原因、并发症、气管拔管前的机械通气变量、动脉血气以及气管拔管前和拔管后1小时的呼吸和心率。共纳入108例患者(无创正压通气组,n = 55;吸氧组,n = 53),排除66例。两组在性别、年龄、疾病严重程度、入院时儿科死亡风险、气管插管及机械通气指征方面无显著差异。再插管率(无创正压通气组9.1%;吸氧组11.3%;p>0.05)以及儿科重症监护病房住院时间(天)(无创正压通气组3[1 - 16];吸氧组2[1 - 25];p>0.05)或医院住院时间(无创正压通气组19[7 - 141];吸氧组17[8 - 80])均无统计学显著差异
该研究表明,在呼吸衰竭儿童中比较无创正压通气和标准氧疗的更大规模随机试验是可行的,为该领域未来的试验提供了依据。两组之间未见差异。排除患者数量较多。