Morris Jenny V, Ramnarayan Padmanabhan, Parslow Roger C, Fleming Sarah J
1School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 2Division of Critical Care, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun;45(6):1045-1053. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002369.
To compare outcomes of children receiving noninvasive ventilation with those receiving invasive ventilation as first-line mode of mechanical ventilation following unplanned intensive care admission.
Propensity score-matched cohort study analyzing data prospectively collected by the Pediatric Intensive Care Audit Network over 8 years (2007-2014).
Thirty-one PICUs in the United Kingdom and Ireland; twenty-one of whom submitted Pediatric Critical Care Minimum Dataset data for the entire study period.
Children consecutively admitted to study PICUs. Planned admissions following surgery, unplanned admissions from other hospitals, those on chronic ventilation, and those who did not receive mechanical ventilation on the day of PICU admission were excluded.
Use of noninvasive ventilation, rather than invasive ventilation, as the first-line mode of mechanical ventilation.
PICU mortality, length of ventilation, length of PICU stay, and ventilator-free days at day 28. During the study period, there were 151,128 PICU admissions. A total of 15,144 admissions (10%) were eligible for analysis once predefined exclusion criteria were applied: 4,804 (31.7%) received "noninvasive ventilation first," whereas 10,221 (67.5%) received "invasive ventilation first"; 119 (0.8%) admissions could not be classified. Admitting PICU site explained 6.5% of the variation in first-line mechanical ventilation group (95% CI, 2.0-19.0%). In propensity score-matched analyses, receiving noninvasive ventilation first was associated with a significant reduction in mortality by 3.1% (95% CI, 1.7-4.6%), length of ventilation by 1.6 days (95% CI, 1.0-2.3), and length of PICU stay by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.3-3.0), as well as an increase in ventilator-free days at day 28 by 3.7 days (95% CI, 3.1-4.3).
Use of noninvasive ventilation as first-line mode of mechanical ventilation in critically ill children admitted to PICU in an unplanned fashion may be associated with significant clinical benefits. Further high-quality evidence regarding optimal patient selection and timing of initiation of noninvasive ventilation could lead to less variability in clinical care between institutions and improved patient outcomes.
比较计划外重症监护病房(PICU)收治的儿童中,接受无创通气与接受有创通气作为机械通气一线模式的患儿的预后情况。
倾向评分匹配队列研究,分析儿科重症监护审核网络在8年(2007 - 2014年)间前瞻性收集的数据。
英国和爱尔兰的31个儿科重症监护病房;其中21个在整个研究期间提交了儿科重症监护最小数据集数据。
连续入住研究性儿科重症监护病房的儿童。排除手术后计划内入院、从其他医院转入的计划外入院、长期通气的患儿以及入住儿科重症监护病房当天未接受机械通气的患儿。
使用无创通气而非有创通气作为机械通气的一线模式。
儿科重症监护病房死亡率、通气时间、儿科重症监护病房住院时间以及第28天无呼吸机天数。研究期间,共有151,128例儿科重症监护病房入院病例。应用预定义排除标准后,共有15,144例入院病例(10%)符合分析条件:4,804例(31.7%)“首先接受无创通气”,而10,221例(67.5%)“首先接受有创通气”;119例(0.8%)入院病例无法分类。收治的儿科重症监护病房地点解释了一线机械通气组6.5%的差异(95%置信区间,2.0 - 19.0%)。在倾向评分匹配分析中,首先接受无创通气与死亡率显著降低3.1%(95%置信区间,1.7 - 4.6%)、通气时间缩短1.6天(95%置信区间,1.0 - 2.3)、儿科重症监护病房住院时间缩短2.1天(95%置信区间,1.3 - 3.0)以及第28天无呼吸机天数增加3.7天(95%置信区间,3.1 - 4.3)相关。
对于以计划外方式入住儿科重症监护病房的危重症儿童,使用无创通气作为机械通气的一线模式可能具有显著的临床益处。关于最佳患者选择和无创通气启动时机的进一步高质量证据,可能会减少各机构之间临床护理的差异,并改善患者预后。