Stefan Mihaela S, Nathanson Brian H, Priya Aruna, Pekow Penelope S, Lagu Tara, Steingrub Jay S, Hill Nicholas S, Goldberg Robert J, Kent David M, Lindenauer Peter K
Center for Quality of Care Research, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Division of Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA; Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
OptiStatim LLC, Longmeadow, MA.
Chest. 2016 Mar;149(3):729-36. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2015.12.013. Epub 2015 Dec 28.
Limited data are available on the use of noninvasive ventilation in patients with asthma exacerbations. The objective of this study was to characterize hospital patterns of noninvasive ventilation use in patients with asthma and to evaluate the association with the use of invasive mechanical ventilation and case fatality rate.
This cross-sectional study used an electronic medical record dataset, which includes comprehensive pharmacy and laboratory results from 58 hospitals. Data on 13,558 patients admitted from 2009 to 2012 were analyzed. Initial noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) was defined as the first ventilation method during hospitalization. Hospital-level risk-standardized rates of NIV among all admissions with asthma were calculated by using a hierarchical regression model. Hospitals were grouped into quartiles of NIV to compare the outcomes.
Overall, 90.3% of patients with asthma were not ventilated, 4.0% were ventilated with NIV, and 5.7% were ventilated with IMV. Twenty-two (38%) hospitals did not use NIV for any included admissions. Hospital-level adjusted NIV rates varied considerably (range, 0.4-33.1; median, 5.2%). Hospitals in the highest quartile of NIV did not have lower IMV use (5.4% vs 5.7%), but they did have a small but significantly shorter length of stay. Higher NIV rates were not associated with lower risk-adjusted case fatality rates.
Large variation exists in hospital use of NIV for patients with an acute exacerbation of asthma. Higher hospital rates of NIV use does not seem to be associated with lower IMV rates. These results indicate a need to understand contextual and organizational factors contributing to this variability.
关于无创通气在哮喘急性加重患者中的应用数据有限。本研究的目的是描述哮喘患者无创通气的医院使用模式,并评估其与有创机械通气使用及病死率的相关性。
这项横断面研究使用了一个电子病历数据集,其中包括58家医院的综合药房和实验室结果。分析了2009年至2012年收治的13558例患者的数据。初始无创通气(NIV)或有创机械通气(IMV)被定义为住院期间的首次通气方法。使用分层回归模型计算所有哮喘入院患者中NIV的医院层面风险标准化率。将医院分为NIV四分位数组以比较结果。
总体而言,90.3%的哮喘患者未接受通气治疗,4.0%接受NIV通气,5.7%接受IMV通气。22家(38%)医院对纳入的任何入院患者均未使用NIV。医院层面调整后的NIV率差异很大(范围为0.4 - 33.1;中位数为5.2%)。NIV最高四分位数组的医院IMV使用率并未降低(5.4%对5.7%),但住院时间确实较短且差异有统计学意义。较高的NIV率与风险调整后的病死率降低无关。
医院对哮喘急性加重患者使用NIV的情况存在很大差异。较高的医院NIV使用率似乎与较低的IMV率无关。这些结果表明需要了解导致这种变异性的背景和组织因素。