Zibrak J D, Hill N S, Federman E C, Kwa S L, O'Donnell C
Pulmonary Division, New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988 Dec;138(6):1515-8. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm/138.6.1515.
We tested the hypothesis that intermittent ventilatory assistance in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) improves pulmonary function and exercise capacity. Twenty stable patients with severe COPD were recruited from outpatient pulmonary clinics and were randomized to use a poncho wrap, negative-pressure ventilator or to receive standard care. After 6 months, the patients receiving standard care were switched over to the ventilator and vice versa, and follow-up was continued for an additional 6 months. After 3 to 6 months of ventilator use, we observed no clinically significant improvements in FEV1, FVC, blood gas determinations, maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures, and exercise duration. However, 11 of our patients dropped out of the study because of an inability to tolerate the ventilator, and all but one of the nine who completed the study expressed dissatisfaction with it, using it for less time (4.1 h/day) than we recommended. Musculoskeletal pain and inconvenience were the most frequently voiced complaints. Because we did not document that ventilator use actually rested the respiratory muscles in our patients and because duration of ventilator use may have been too brief, we cannot conclude that intermittent rest of respiratory muscles in patients with severe COPD fails to bring about improvement. On the other hand, our results demonstrate that the poncho wrap ventilator is poorly tolerated by patients with severe COPD in a typical outpatient setting. We suggest that future trials seek to utilize better tolerated ventilatory assist devices.
我们检验了这样一个假设,即对重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者进行间歇性通气支持可改善肺功能和运动能力。从门诊肺部诊所招募了20名病情稳定的重度COPD患者,并将他们随机分为使用雨披式负压通气机组或接受标准治疗组。6个月后,接受标准治疗的患者改用通气机,反之亦然,并继续随访6个月。在使用通气机3至6个月后,我们观察到第1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、用力肺活量(FVC)、血气测定、最大吸气和呼气压力以及运动持续时间均无临床显著改善。然而,我们的11名患者因无法耐受通气机而退出研究,在完成研究的9名患者中,除1人外,其余所有人都对其表示不满,使用时间(每天4.1小时)低于我们的建议。肌肉骨骼疼痛和不便成为最常提及的抱怨。由于我们没有记录通气机的使用是否确实让我们的患者呼吸肌得到了休息,而且通气机的使用时间可能过短,因此我们不能得出结论,即重度COPD患者呼吸肌的间歇性休息无法带来改善。另一方面,我们的结果表明,在典型的门诊环境中,重度COPD患者对雨披式通气机的耐受性较差。我们建议未来的试验尝试使用耐受性更好的通气支持设备。