Nilius Georg, Katamadze Nato, Domanski Ulrike, Schroeder Maik, Franke Karl-Josef
HELIOS Klinik Hagen-Ambrock.
Internal Medicine I, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017 Mar 30;12:1039-1045. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S126970. eCollection 2017.
COPD patients who develop chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure have a poor prognosis. Treatment of choice, especially the best form of ventilation, is not well known.
This study compared the effects of pressure-controlled (spontaneous timed [ST]) non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and NIV with intelligent volume-assured pressure support (IVAPS) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients regarding the effects on alveolar ventilation, adverse patient/ventilator interactions and sleep quality.
This prospective, single-center, crossover study randomized patients to one night of NIV using ST then one night with the IVAPS function activated, or vice versa. Patients were monitored using polysomnography (PSG) and transcutaneous carbon dioxide pressure (PtcCO) measurement. Patients rated their subjective experience (total score, 0-45; lower scores indicate better acceptability).
Fourteen patients were included (4 females, age 59.4±8.9 years). The total number of respiratory events was low, and similar under pressure-controlled (5.4±6.7) and IVAPS (8.3±10.2) conditions (=0.064). There were also no clinically relevant differences in PtcCO between pressure-controlled and IVAPS NIV (52.9±6.2 versus 49.1±6.4 mmHg). Respiratory rate was lower under IVAPS overall; between-group differences reached statistical significance during wakefulness and non-rapid eye movement sleep. Ventilation pressures were 2.6 cmHO higher under IVAPS versus pressure-controlled ventilation, resulting in a 20.1 mL increase in breathing volume. Sleep efficiency was slightly higher under pressure-controlled ventilation versus IVAPS. Respiratory arousals were uncommon (24.4/h [pressure-controlled] versus 25.4/h [IVAPS]). Overall patient assessment scores were similar, although there was a trend toward less discomfort during IVAPS.
Our results show that IVAPS NIV allows application of higher nocturnal ventilation pressures versus ST without affecting sleep quality or inducing ventilation- associated events.
发生慢性高碳酸血症呼吸衰竭的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者预后较差。治疗的选择,尤其是最佳的通气方式,尚不明确。
本研究比较了压力控制(自主定时[ST])无创通气(NIV)和具有智能容量保证压力支持(IVAPS)的NIV对慢性高碳酸血症COPD患者肺泡通气、不良患者/呼吸机相互作用及睡眠质量的影响。
这项前瞻性、单中心、交叉研究将患者随机分为两组,一组先进行一晚使用ST的NIV,然后再进行一晚激活IVAPS功能的NIV,另一组顺序相反。使用多导睡眠图(PSG)和经皮二氧化碳分压(PtcCO)测量对患者进行监测。患者对他们的主观体验进行评分(总分0 - 45分;分数越低表示可接受性越好)。
纳入14例患者(4例女性,年龄59.4±8.9岁)。呼吸事件总数较低,在压力控制(5.4±6.7)和IVAPS(8.3±10.2)条件下相似(P = 0.064)。压力控制和IVAPS NIV之间的PtcCO也没有临床相关差异(52.9±6.2与49.1±6.4 mmHg)。总体而言,IVAPS下的呼吸频率较低;在清醒和非快速眼动睡眠期间,组间差异具有统计学意义。与压力控制通气相比,IVAPS下的通气压力高2.6 cmH₂O,导致呼吸量增加20.1 mL。压力控制通气下的睡眠效率略高于IVAPS。呼吸觉醒不常见(压力控制组为24.4次/小时,IVAPS组为25.4次/小时)。总体患者评估得分相似,尽管IVAPS期间不适程度有降低的趋势。
我们的结果表明,与ST相比,IVAPS NIV能够在不影响睡眠质量或诱发通气相关事件的情况下应用更高的夜间通气压力。