Wang Billy C, Pei Theodore, Lin Cheryl B, Guo Rong, Elashoff David, Lin James A, Pineda Carol
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, CA 92354, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts, Boston, MA 02111, United States.
World J Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep 7;7(4):46-51. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v7.i4.46.
To characterize the clinical course and outcomes of nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) use in acute pediatric respiratory failure.
We identified all patients treated with NIMV in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) or inpatient general pediatrics between January 2013 and December 2015 at two academic centers. Patients who utilized NIMV with other modes of noninvasive ventilation during the same admission were included. Data included demographics, vital signs on admission and prior to initiation of NIMV, pediatric risk of mortality III (PRISM-III) scores, complications, respiratory support characteristics, PICU and hospital length of stays, duration of respiratory support, and complications. Patients who did not require escalation to mechanical ventilation were defined as NIMV responders; those who required escalation to mechanical ventilation (MV) were defined as NIMV non-responders. NIMV responders were compared to NIMV non-responders.
Forty-two patients met study criteria. Six (14%) failed treatment and required MV. The majority of the patients (74%) had a primary diagnosis of bronchiolitis. The median age of these 42 patients was 4 mo (range 0.5-28.1 mo, IQR 7, = 0.69). No significant difference was measured in other baseline demographics and vitals on initiation of NIMV; these included age, temperature, respiratory rate, O2 saturation, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and PRISM-III scores. The duration of NIMV was shorter in the NIMV non-responder NIMV responder group (6.5 h 65 h, < 0.0005). Otherwise, NIMV failure was not associated with significant differences in PICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, or total duration of respiratory support. No patients had aspiration pneumonia, pneumothorax, or skin breakdown.
Most of our patients responded to NIMV. NIMV failure is not associated with differences in hospital LOS, PICU LOS, or duration of respiratory support.
描述小儿急性呼吸衰竭中使用鼻间歇强制通气(NIMV)的临床过程及结果。
我们确定了2013年1月至2015年12月期间在两个学术中心的儿科重症监护病房(PICU)或住院普通儿科接受NIMV治疗的所有患者。纳入在同一住院期间使用NIMV及其他无创通气模式的患者。数据包括人口统计学资料、入院时及开始NIMV前的生命体征、小儿死亡率风险Ⅲ(PRISM-Ⅲ)评分、并发症、呼吸支持特征、PICU及住院时间、呼吸支持持续时间和并发症。未升级至机械通气的患者被定义为NIMV反应者;需要升级至机械通气(MV)的患者被定义为NIMV无反应者。将NIMV反应者与NIMV无反应者进行比较。
42例患者符合研究标准。6例(14%)治疗失败,需要MV。大多数患者(74%)的主要诊断为细支气管炎。这42例患者的中位年龄为4个月(范围0.5 - 28.1个月,IQR 7, = 0.69)。开始NIMV时,在其他基线人口统计学资料和生命体征方面未检测到显著差异;这些包括年龄、体温、呼吸频率、血氧饱和度、心率、收缩压、舒张压和PRISM-Ⅲ评分。NIMV无反应者组的NIMV持续时间短于NIMV反应者组(6.5小时 65小时, < 0.0005)。否则,NIMV失败与PICU住院时间(LOS)、住院LOS或呼吸支持总持续时间的显著差异无关。没有患者发生吸入性肺炎、气胸或皮肤破损。
我们的大多数患者对NIMV有反应。NIMV失败与住院LOS、PICU LOS或呼吸支持持续时间的差异无关。