Fubini P E, Suppan L
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine University of Geneva, CH-1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
Int J Emerg Med. 2020 May 7;13(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12245-020-00284-y.
In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is generally recommended and has proven its benefits by reducing endotracheal intubation (ETI) rates, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, complications, and mortality. Choosing between immediate ETI or NIV trial is often difficult when such patients present with an altered mental status. Some guidelines recommend avoiding NIV when consciousness is impaired given the risk of aspiration, and some authors suggest that a pH < 7.25 is highly predictive of NIV failure. Though clinical response to a well-adjusted NIV treatment can be both swift and spectacular, these contraindications probably encourage physicians to proceed to immediate ETI. Some studies indeed report that NIV was not even considered in as many as 60% of patients who might have benefited from this therapy, though ETI related complications might have been avoided had NIV been successfully applied.
We report two cases of ARF in COPD patients who were successfully treated by NIV in prehospital setting and avoided ETI despite contraindications (altered mental status with a Glasgow Coma Scale < 8) and failure risk factors (severe respiratory acidosis with pH < 7.25).
In COPD patients presenting ARF, NIV trial could be considered even when relative contraindications such as an altered level of consciousness or a severe respiratory acidosis are present.
在患有急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者中,通常推荐使用无创通气(NIV),并且通过降低气管插管(ETI)率、重症监护病房(ICU)入住率、并发症及死亡率已证实其益处。当此类患者出现精神状态改变时,在立即进行ETI还是进行NIV试验之间做出选择往往很困难。一些指南建议,鉴于存在误吸风险,当意识受损时应避免使用NIV,一些作者则表明pH < 7.25高度预示NIV失败。尽管对调整良好的NIV治疗的临床反应可能既迅速又显著,但这些禁忌证可能促使医生直接进行ETI。一些研究确实报告称,在多达60%可能从该治疗中获益的患者中甚至未考虑过NIV,尽管若成功应用NIV本可避免与ETI相关的并发症。
我们报告两例COPD合并ARF的患者,他们在院前环境中通过NIV成功治疗,尽管存在禁忌证(格拉斯哥昏迷量表< 8的精神状态改变)和失败风险因素(pH < 7.25的严重呼吸性酸中毒),仍避免了ETI。
在出现ARF的COPD患者中,即使存在意识水平改变或严重呼吸性酸中毒等相对禁忌证,也可考虑进行NIV试验。