Matsumoto Takeshi, Tomii Keisuke, Tachikawa Ryo, Otsuka Kojiro, Nagata Kazuma, Otsuka Kyoko, Nakagawa Atsushi, Mishima Michiaki, Chin Kazuo
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, 2-1-1 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650-0047, Japan.
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 kawahara-cho, shogoin, sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
BMC Pulm Med. 2015 Jul 13;15:71. doi: 10.1186/s12890-015-0072-5.
Although sedation is often required for agitated patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV), reports on its practical use have been few. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sedation for agitated patients undergoing NIV in clinical practice in a single hospital.
We retrospectively reviewed sedated patients who received NIV due to acute respiratory failure from May 2007 to May 2012. Sedation level was controlled according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS). Clinical background, sedatives, failure rate of sedation, and complications were evaluated by 1) sedative methods (intermittent only, switched to continuous, or initially continuous) and 2) code status (do-not-intubate [DNI] or non-DNI).
Of 3506 patients who received NIV, 120 (3.4 %) consecutive patients were analyzed. Sedation was performed only intermittently in 72 (60 %) patients, was switched to continuously in 37 (31 %) and was applied only continuously in 11 (9 %). Underlying diseases in 48 % were acute respiratory distress syndrome/acute lung injury/severe pneumonia or acute exacerbation of interstitial pneumonia. In non-DNI patients (n = 39), no patient required intubation due to agitation with continuous sedation, and in DNI patients (n = 81), 96 % of patients could continue NIV treatment. PaCO2 level changes (6.7 ± 15.1 mmHg vs. -2.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P = 0.028) and mortality in DNI patients (81 % vs. 57 %, P = 0.020) were significantly greater in the continuous use group than in the intermittent use group.
According to RASS scores, sedation during NIV in proficient hospitals may be favorably used to potentially avoid NIV failure in agitated patients, even in those having diseases with poor evidence of the usefulness of NIV. However, with continuous use, we must be aware of an increased hypercapnic state and the possibility of increased mortality. Larger controlled studies are needed to better clarify the role of sedation in improving NIV outcomes in intolerant patients.
尽管对于接受无创通气(NIV)的躁动患者常常需要进行镇静,但关于其实际应用的报道却很少。本研究旨在评估在一家医院的临床实践中,对接受NIV的躁动患者进行镇静的有效性和安全性。
我们回顾性分析了2007年5月至2012年5月期间因急性呼吸衰竭接受NIV的镇静患者。根据里士满躁动镇静量表(RASS)控制镇静水平。通过以下方面评估临床背景、镇静药物、镇静失败率和并发症:1)镇静方法(仅间歇性、改为持续性或初始为持续性);2)医嘱状态(不插管[DNI]或非DNI)。
在3506例接受NIV的患者中,对120例(3.4%)连续患者进行了分析。72例(60%)患者仅进行间歇性镇静,37例(31%)改为持续性镇静,11例(9%)仅采用持续性镇静。48%的基础疾病为急性呼吸窘迫综合征/急性肺损伤/重症肺炎或间质性肺炎急性加重。在非DNI患者(n = 39)中,没有患者因持续性镇静导致的躁动而需要插管,在DNI患者(n = 81)中,96%的患者能够继续NIV治疗。持续性使用组的DNI患者的PaCO2水平变化(6.7±15.1 mmHg对 -2.0±7.7 mmHg,P = 0.028)和死亡率(81%对57%,P = 0.020)显著高于间歇性使用组。
根据RASS评分,在专业医院进行NIV期间的镇静可能有助于避免躁动患者的NIV失败,即使是那些NIV有效性证据不足的疾病患者。然而,持续使用时,我们必须意识到高碳酸血症状态增加以及死亡率增加的可能性。需要更大规模的对照研究来更好地阐明镇静在改善不耐受患者NIV结局中的作用。