FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2088893875> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2088893875 endingPage "431" @default.
• W2088893875 startingPage "428" @default.
• W2088893875 abstract "Liesching and colleagues, in this month’s issue of CHEST (see page 699), have nicely reviewed the acute applications of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV). This is neither the first review of this type, nor is NPPV a particularly new manner of delivering positive-pressure therapy. So what is of interest here? Liesching and colleagues comment on the efficacy of NPPV. The most studied application is in acute exacerbations of COPD. The authors comment that the extant data support the contention that NPPV is effective in acute exacerbations of COPD, bringing about rapid symptomatic and physiologic improvement, and decreasing the need for intubation. We suspect that this is correct, and NPPV may well reduce the number of intubations in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. However, there are some caveats. Brochard and colleagues1Brochard L Mancebo J Wysocki M et al.Noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 817-822Crossref PubMed Scopus (1676) Google Scholar compared NPPV delivered with a mask to standard therapy. Whether the improvement in the NPPV group was related to the noninvasive ventilation per se or to the use of pressure support ventilation used in the NPPV group is not clear. The use of pressure support ventilation would likely reduce the work of breathing (WOB),2Appendini L Patessio A Zanaboni S et al.Physiologic effects of positive end-expiratory pressure and mask pressure support during exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994; 149: 1069-1076Crossref PubMed Scopus (442) Google Scholar and this may be responsible for at least some of the improvement seen. A second trial, carried out by our Turkish colleagues Çelikel et al,3Çelikel T Sungur M Ceyhan B et al.Comparison of NPPV with standard medical therapy in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure.Chest. 1998; 114: 1636-1642Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (327) Google Scholar noted a 93% success rate for NPPV in preventing endotracheal intubation. This high rate of success makes one wonder whether these patients were ill enough to have required mechanical ventilation. Despite these concerns, there is a large body of literature suggesting that NPPV may be considered the first-line intervention for acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients chosen for this method of ventilation should, however, be carefully selected based on their risk factors. In patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE), the administration of positive pressure increases pericardial pressure, reduces transmural pressure, and thus decreases afterload. Additionally, the increase in intrathoracic pressure decreases preload, thereby improving mechanics in an overloaded ventricle. Thus, therapy with NPPV may be beneficial in patients with systolic dysfunction. However, in patients with diastolic dysfunction requiring a relatively high filling pressure, as well as in those patients who are relatively hypovolemic, the hemodynamic effect of therapy with positive pressure may compromise venous return, resulting in the deterioration of hemodynamics and the need for further fluid administration. As expected, the effect of positive pressure on hemodynamics is determined by pulmonary mechanics. The higher the compliance, for example in COPD patients, the more pressure is transmitted and the more one expects venous return to be decreased. Lin and Chiang4Lin M Chiang HT The efficacy of early continuous positive airway pressure therapy in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.J Formos Med Assoc. 1991; 90: 736-743PubMed Google Scholar have shown that there is no difference in mortality rate whether or not continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is used in the treatment of patients with CPE. This is not unexpected, as outcome in CPE patients is likely to be related not to effective ventilation, but to cardiovascular performance. Masip and colleagues5Masip J Betbese AJ Paez J et al.Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomised trial.Lancet. 2000; 356: 2126-2132Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (356) Google Scholar have reported that the application of NPPV to patients with CPE led to rapid improvement of the clinical picture, with a reduction in the intubation rate with respect to those patients treated with oxygen therapy delivered via Venturi mask and aggressive medical therapy, even though the final outcome was not different. Is there a difference between therapy with CPAP and NPPV in patients with CPE? NPPV is thought to decrease WOB more than therapy with CPAP. Any effect of CPAP on WOB is likely to be secondary to its ability to bring the pulmonary compliance curve to a more advantageous position such that a higher tidal volume is generated at the same pressure change. We think that it is likely that both CPAP and NPPV are useful in the treatment of CPE, but no randomized controlled trial has compared the two techniques thus far. Liesching and colleagues note that the use of NPPV in selected COPD patients with pneumonia is appropriate. However, the usefulness of NPPV in patients with pneumonia without COPD is less clear.6Jolliet P Abajo B Pasquina P et al.Non-invasive pressure support ventilation in severe community-acquired pneumonia.Intensive Care Med. 2001; 27: 812-821Crossref PubMed Scopus (148) Google Scholar It may be that when pulmonary secretions are a major issue and the oxygenation is severely compromised, as in a patient with pneumonia, noninvasive ventilation is a poor choice. Data regarding the use of NPPV in patients with pneumonia are, at the moment, not definitive and do not support the safe and extensive application of NPPV for patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia. Great caution is advised in the use of NPPV in patients with ARDS. Antonelli and colleagues7Antonelli M Conti G Moro ML et al.Predictors of failure of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure: a multicenter study.Intensive Care Med. 2001; 27: 1718-1728Crossref PubMed Scopus (549) Google Scholar have pointed out, in their large multicenter study of predictors of failure in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NPPV, that failure rates in ARDS range from about 6 to 54%. This is compared to a failure rate of about 10% in patients with CPE. We believe that if NPPV is to be used at all in patients with ARDS, it must be applied in hemodynamically stable patients who can be closely monitored and for whom endotracheal intubation is immediately available. At this time, no randomized controlled trials exist on the use of NPPV in patients with ARDS/acute lung injury. All extant data have come from subgroup analyses of larger studies on hypoxemic acute respiratory failure, from studies of the immunocompromised patients, or from case report series. The promising results published to date should not be interpreted as supporting the extensive use of NPPV in patients with ARDS, but rather provide suggestions for future randomized controls trials.8Antonelli M Conti G Bufi M et al.Noninvasive ventilation for treatment of acute respiratory failure in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation.JAMA. 2000; 283: 235-241Crossref PubMed Scopus (600) Google Scholar9Hilbert G Gruson D Vargas F et al.Noninvasive ventilation in immunosuppressed patients with pulmonary infiltrates, fever, and acute respiratory failure.N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 481-487Crossref PubMed Scopus (913) Google Scholar One is also somewhat concerned about the use of NPPV as compliance deteriorates, as this might lead to gastric distension, resulting from high airway pressures. Commonly used extubation criteria, such as negative inspiratory force, FVC, and the presence of a leak around the deflated endotracheal tube cuff, are relatively poor predictors of successful extubation. As, on occasion, work imposed by the endotracheal tube and ventilator circuit (ie, imposed WOB [IWOB]) may result in difficult weaning, removal of the endotracheal tube and a switch to noninvasive ventilation might speed recovery from mechanical ventilation.10Nava S Ambrosino N Clini E et al.Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in the weaning of patients with respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized, controlled trial.Ann Intern Med. 1998; 128: 721-728Crossref PubMed Scopus (628) Google Scholar11Girault C Daudenthun I Chevron V et al.Noninvasive ventilation as a systematic extubation and weaning technique in acute-on-chronic respiratory failure: a prospective, randomized controlled study.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999; 160: 86-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (331) Google Scholar Although speculative, the measurement of IWOB before extubating these patients, and having NPPV available for all appropriate patients, might clarify which patients require endotracheal intubation and ventilatory support, as opposed to those whose IWOB is elevated simply because of the presence of the endotracheal tube. There are significant problems in resource consumption for NPPV. One study12Chevrolet JC Jolliet P Abajo B et al.Nasal positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure: difficult and time-consuming procedure for nurses.Chest. 1991; 100: 775-782Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (177) Google Scholar has noted that nurses must be at the bedside 91% of the time when patients are receiving noninvasive ventilation. This means, at least theoretically, that the nurse/patient ratio should be 1:1 and that the patient likely should be housed in the ICU, a not inexpensive requirement. After the first hour of NPPV, the time spent at the bedside may not differ from that required for intubated patients. Additionally, respiratory therapist resources are required, fairly intensively, for the first 48 h of NPPV use.13Nava S Evangelisti I Rampulla C et al.Human and financial costs of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients affected by COPD and acute respiratory failure.Chest. 1997; 111: 1631-1638Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (182) Google Scholar Finally, we note that, in the United States, the insurance and governmental reimbursement of NPPV is lower than expected, especially given the rather intense resource use required to make this method of ventilation safe and effective. Interestingly, the European situation with regard to reimbursement is different, and, at least in Italy, NPPV is included in the diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). This may be one of the reasons why this technique is more popular and widely used among our European colleagues. In the United States, the DRG code (not the International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision, code) for mechanical ventilation specifically excludes mechanical ventilation administered via a mask, even though NPPV may be safer and may result in fewer complications. For example, a patient is admitted to the hospital with pneumonia and ultimately develops respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation. If the mechanical ventilation is delivered via an endotracheal tube, the DRG coding would be as follows. Respiratory failure with mechanical ventilation using an endotracheal tube codes to DRG 475, with a weight of 3.6632, which equals a hospital reimbursement (not physician reimbursement) of $24,574.98 (in US dollars). The coding is different if this same patient has the mechanical ventilation delivered by any of the following methods: bilevel airway pressure; continuous negative-pressure ventilation; intermittent positive-pressure breathing; face mask; nasal cannula; or nasal catheter. The code properly used is DRG 91, with a weight of 0.7034. This leads to a hospital reimbursement of $4,718.84. There is an illogical inconsistency in this manner of reimbursement that could, quite logically, lead hospitals to minimize the use of NPPV in favor of the more invasive ventilation delivered by endotracheal tube. In summary, NPPV is a useful tool for delivering positive-pressure ventilation in the ICU. Several points should be remembered regarding this method of ventilation: 1.Patient selection is fundamental. Patients with altered mental status and/or increased secretions typically are not considered to be appropriate for the use of NPPV.2.NPPV is titrated similarly to invasive ventilation, which is performed to reduce the obvious clinical signs of increased WOB.3.Positive-pressure ventilation therapy of any type may be useful in patients with systolic dysfunction and is always useful to enhance functional residual capacity, but could be deleterious in patients with diastolic dysfunction, low intravascular volume, a very compliant lung, or a stiff chest wall.4.NPPV seems to require, at least in the beginning, more intensive follow-up from physicians, respiratory therapists, and nurses. Therefore, there is a price associated with the administration of this method of ventilation. The illogic of DRG coding and reimbursement, in the case of NPPV, requires our professional organizations, such as the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, to assist in correcting this." @default.
• W2088893875 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2088893875 creator A5020941545 @default.
• W2088893875 creator A5027855601 @default.
• W2088893875 creator A5030961669 @default.
• W2088893875 creator A5058679150 @default.
• W2088893875 date "2003-08-01" @default.
• W2088893875 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2088893875 title "Yet Another Look at Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation" @default.
• W2088893875 cites W1867982530 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W1968739440 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2033298901 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2049781356 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2066511326 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2069378897 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2104821681 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2123424565 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2145862978 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2146020538 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W2329899462 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W4236073362 @default.
• W2088893875 cites W4376453297 @default.
• W2088893875 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.124.2.428" @default.
• W2088893875 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12907525" @default.
• W2088893875 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2088893875 type Work @default.
• W2088893875 sameAs 2088893875 @default.
• W2088893875 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2088893875 countsByYear W20888938752016 @default.
• W2088893875 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2088893875 hasAuthorship W2088893875A5020941545 @default.
• W2088893875 hasAuthorship W2088893875A5027855601 @default.
• W2088893875 hasAuthorship W2088893875A5030961669 @default.
• W2088893875 hasAuthorship W2088893875A5058679150 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C153294291 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C200457457 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C2777080012 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C2910146169 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C2992376330 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C3019440749 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C534529494 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C121332964 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C126322002 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C153294291 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C164705383 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C177713679 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C200457457 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C2777080012 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C2910146169 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C2992376330 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C3019440749 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C534529494 @default.
• W2088893875 hasConceptScore W2088893875C71924100 @default.
• W2088893875 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2088893875 hasLocation W20888938751 @default.
• W2088893875 hasLocation W20888938752 @default.
• W2088893875 hasOpenAccess W2088893875 @default.
• W2088893875 hasPrimaryLocation W20888938751 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W1964846956 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W1965987222 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W1966216479 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W2037667787 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W2095398979 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W2366239896 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W2399472862 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W2918443719 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W4230770185 @default.
• W2088893875 hasRelatedWork W4255580950 @default.
• W2088893875 hasVolume "124" @default.
• W2088893875 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2088893875 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2088893875 magId "2088893875" @default.
• W2088893875 workType "article" @default.