a Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) , Chandigarh , India.
COPD. 2019 Apr;16(2):168-173. doi: 10.1080/15412555.2019.1620716. Epub 2019 Jun 4.
Whether the use of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is as effective as pressure support ventilation (PSV) remains unknown. In this exploratory study, we compared the delivery of NIV with PSV vs. ASV. We randomized consecutive subjects with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) to receive NIV either with the PSV or the ASV mode. The primary outcome was NIV failure (endotracheal intubation, re-institution of NIV within 48 h of discontinuation or mortality). The secondary outcomes were the duration of mechanical ventilation (invasive and noninvasive), the number of NIV manipulations, the visual analogue score (VAS) for physician's ease of use and patient's comfort, and the complications of NIV use. We enrolled 74 subjects ( = 38, PSV; = 36, ASV; 78.4% males) with a mean (SD) age of 60.5 (9.5) years. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The overall NIV failure rate was 28.4% and was similar between the two groups (PSV vs. ASV: 34.2% vs. 22.2%, = 0.31). There was a 9% reduction in the intubation rate with ASV. There were six deaths (PSV vs. ASV: 2 vs 4, =0.311). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes. The application of NIV using ASV was associated with a similar success rate as PSV in subjects with AECOPD. Due to the small sample size, the results of our study should be confirmed in a larger trial. ww.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02877524).
在无创通气(NIV)中使用适应性支持通气(ASV)是否与压力支持通气(PSV)一样有效尚不清楚。在这项探索性研究中,我们比较了 PSV 与 ASV 模式下 NIV 的输送。我们将连续的慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重(AECOPD)患者随机分为接受 PSV 或 ASV 模式的 NIV。主要结局是 NIV 失败(气管插管、停止 NIV 后 48 小时内重新开始 NIV 或死亡率)。次要结局是机械通气(有创和无创)的持续时间、NIV 操作次数、医生使用方便的视觉模拟评分(VAS)和患者舒适度,以及 NIV 使用的并发症。我们纳入了 74 名患者(PSV 组:38 名,ASV 组:36 名,78.4%为男性),平均年龄(标准差)为 60.5(9.5)岁。两组的基线特征相似。总体 NIV 失败率为 28.4%,两组相似(PSV 组 vs. ASV 组:34.2% vs. 22.2%, =0.31)。ASV 组的插管率降低了 9%。有 6 例死亡(PSV 组 vs. ASV 组:2 例 vs. 4 例, =0.311)。次要结局无差异。在 AECOPD 患者中,使用 ASV 的 NIV 应用与 PSV 具有相似的成功率。由于样本量小,我们的研究结果应在更大的试验中得到证实。www.clinicaltrials.gov(NCT02877524)。