Free On-line Access

SPCI - Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos

Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva

AMIB - Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE MEDICINA INTENSIVA AND THE SOCIEDADE PORTUGUESA DE CUIDADOS INTENSIVOS

ISSN: 0103-507X
Online ISSN: 1982-4335

Ícone Fechar

How to Cite


 

Yamauchi LY, Figueiroa M, Silveira LTY, Travaglia TCF, Bernardes S, Fu C. Ventilação não invasiva com pressão positiva pós-extubação: características e desfechos na prática clínica. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2015;27(3):252-259

 

 

2015;27(3):252-259
ORIGINAL ARTICLES

10.5935/0103-507X.20150046

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation after extubation: features and outcomes in clinical practice

Ventilação não invasiva com pressão positiva pós-extubação: características e desfechos na prática clínica

Liria Yuri Yamauchi1, Maise Figueiroa2, Leda Tomiko Yamada da Silveira2, Teresa Cristina Francischetto Travaglia2, Sidnei Bernardes2, Carolina Fu2

1 Department of Human Movement Sciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo - Santos (SP), Brazil
2 Department of Physiotherapy, Communication Sciences & Disorders, and Occupational Therapy, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo - São Paulo (SP), Brazil

Conflicts of interest: None.

Authors’ contributions

L Yamauchi, M Figueroa, TCF Travaglia, S Nobre, and C Fu conceived the study and participated in its design. M Figueroa, TCF Travaglia and S Nobre performed the data collection. L Yamauchi, M Figueroa and C Fu wrote the manuscript. L Yamauchi conducted part of the statistical analysis and reviewed the manuscript. C Fu, L Yamauchi and LTY Silveira also reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Submitted on April 15, 2015
Accepted on August 30, 2015

Corresponding author: Carolina Fu, Rua Cipotânea, 51 - Cidade Universitária, Zip code: 05360-000 - São Paulo (SP), Brazil. E-mail: carolfu@usp.br

 

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe postextubation noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use in intensive care unit clinical practice and to identify factors associated with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients aged ≥ 18 years consecutively admitted to the intensive care unit who required noninvasive positive pressure ventilation within 48 hours of extubation. The primary outcome was noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure.
RESULTS: We included 174 patients in the study. The overall noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use rate was 15%. Among the patients who used noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, 44% used it after extubation. The failure rate of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was 34%. The overall mean ± SD age was 56 ± 18 years, and 55% of participants were male. Demographics; baseline pH, PaCO2 and HCO3; and type of equipment used were similar between groups. All of the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation final parameters were higher in the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure group [inspiratory positive airway pressure: 15.0 versus 13.7cmH2O (p = 0.015), expiratory positive airway pressure: 10.0 versus 8.9cmH2O (p = 0.027), and FiO2: 41 versus 33% (p = 0.014)]. The mean intensive care unit length of stay was longer (24 versus 13 days), p < 0.001, and the intensive care unit mortality rate was higher (55 versus 10%), p < 0.001 in the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure group. After fitting, the logistic regression model allowed us to state that patients with inspiratory positive airway pressure ≥ 13.5cmH2O on the last day of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation support are three times more likely to experience noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure compared with individuals with inspiratory positive airway pressure < 13.5 (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 1.01 - 10.52, p value = 0.040).
CONCLUSION: The noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure group had a longer intensive care unit length of stay and a higher mortality rate. Logistic regression analysis identified that patients with inspiratory positive airway pressure ≥ 13.5cmH2O on the last day of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation support are three times more likely to experience noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure.

Keywords: Respiration, artificial; Positive-pressure respiration/methods; Airway extubation; Ventilator weaning; Treatment outcomes; Intensive care units.

 

INTRODUCTION

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been widely used in intensive care units (ICU). Despite conflicting scientific evidence regarding many indications for its use, NIPPV has become a part of routine care in the majority of ICU worldwide.(1-4) According to the literature, some indications are considered acceptable, but others are still under investigation, such as the use of NIPPV after extubation.

This approach has some different nuances, mainly based on timing. Some studies have incorporated NIPPV into the weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation, meaning that NIPPV is applied immediately after extubation as part of a continuous process.(5-8) In these cases, NIPPV can be applied immediately as a preventive,(9,10) after failure of a spontaneous breathing trial(11) or after extubation of high-risk patients.(12)

In other hand, the use of NIPPV after the development of acute respiratory failure (ARF) after extubation has presented conflicting results. While some studies have found that NIPPV may prevent reintubation,(13) others have shown that it does not seem to diminish the reintubation rate and may even increase the mortality rate.(14)

From a clinical point of view, NIPPV is indispensable in the ICU, and information about its use in practice may raise some important issues not identified in randomized clinical trials. The present study was undertaken to describe post-extubation NIPPV use in ICU clinical practice and to identify factors associated with NIPPV failure after extubation.

METHODS

Between May and December 2007, a prospective cohort study was conducted at Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculdade de Medicina of the Universidade de São Paulo, located in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. The study was carried out in eleven ICU (140 beds). This study was approved by the hospital Ethical Committee (number 0327/07), and the requirement for informed consent was waived because data were collected from patients’ records, and no intervention was performed.

All adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) consecutively admitted to the ICU who used NIPPV within 48 hours of extubation were included. Patients were excluded if there was any relevant information missing from the charts.

Data were collected from medical charts and directly from the ICU staff. All decisions about NIPPV use were exclusively made by the ICU team; researchers did not intervene in any way. Patients were analyzed as success NIPPV group and failure NIPPV group. The following data were collected: demographics [age, gender and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) at ICU admission]; day and time of intubation; reason for invasive mechanical ventilation [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, decreased level of consciousness, neuromuscular disease, ARF, cardiac arrest, hemodynamic instability or surgery]; day and time of extubation; and day and time of the start of NIPPV.

Data related to NIPPV collected in the study included the indication for NIPPV [acute respiratory failure after extubation (signs of respiratory distress up to 48 hours after extubation), early weaning (NIPPV immediately after extubation in patients considered at high risk for reintubation, such as COPD patients), and preventive NIPPV (in cases without ARF but with relevant comorbidities)]; the period of NIPPV use; type of equipment used (BIPAP Vision - Respironics®, BIPAP ST/d Respironics®, Downs flow generator - Vital Signs®, or double function mechanical ventilator); time from extubation until NIPPV initiation (0 or ≥ 1 day); NIPPV parameters; type of NIPPV interface; arterial blood gas test prior to NIPPV use; mask leakage; intolerance to NIPPV; need for airway suctioning; NIPPV complications; reintubation rate; reasons for reintubation; NIPPV failure rate (defined as reintubation after NIPPV use); ICU mortality rate; and ICU length of stay.

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis was carried out. Quantitative variables were presented as the mean and standard deviation (SD) or the median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables were presented as proportions. The predictive capacity of quantitative variables for NIPPV failure was assessed with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves; the area under the curve (AUC) and optimal cutoff values (based on best values of sensitivity and specificity) were calculated.

The logistic regression model was fitted using NIPPV failure as a dependent variable. The following steps were taken: independent variables were selected based on their clinical relevance and were dichotomized based on cutoff values calculated by ROC curves. After that, all independent variables were submitted to univariate analysis. Odds ratio and Fisher’s exact test were applied to identify possible associations among independent variables and NIPPV failure. The odds ratio of each independent variable was calculated based on 2 x 2 tables to define which variables would comprise the initial model of logistic regression. The variables with p-values above 0.30 were not included in the initial model. Multi-collinearity was evaluated by variance inflation factors. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was applied to verify the goodness of fit model.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2,773 patients were admitted to the ICU. NIPPV was used on 407 (15%) of them. After excluding 15 patients due to missing data, the study population was 392 patients. Those who used NIPPV only after extubation accounted for 44%, or 174 patients (Figure 1). Baseline characteristics of the study population are presented in table 1.

Figure 1 - Study flowchart. NIPPV - noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; ICU - intensive care unit.
Table 1 - Baseline characteristics in patients treated with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the intensive care unit according to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation outcome
Variables All NIPPV patients N = 174 NIPPV success patients N = 114 NIPPV failure patients N = 60
Age (years) 56 ± 18 55 ± 18 60 ± 17
Male 98 (56) 63 (55) 35 (58)
SAPS II at ICU admission 42 ± 18 40 ± 14 44 ± 14
Reason for ICU admission      
    Medical 82 (47) 56 (50) 26 (42)
    Emergency surgery 44 (25) 30 (26) 14 (23)
    Elective surgery 48 (28) 28 (25) 20 (33)
Reason for initiation of mechanical ventilation      
Postoperative respiratory failure 56 (32) 36 (32) 20 (33)
Acute respiratory failure 42 (24) 27 (24) 15 (25)
    ALI/ARDS 3 (2) 1 (1) 2 (3)
    Cardiogenic pulmonary edema 4 (2) 2 (2) 2 (3)
    Pneumonia 6 (3) 6 (5) 0 (0)
    Trauma 15 (9) 10 (9) 5 (8)
    Upper airway obstruction/Apnea 1 (0.6) 0 (0) 1 (2)
    Other causes 12 (7) 8 (7) 4 (7)
    Ignored 1 (0.6)    
Decreased level of consciousness 23 (13) 16 (14) 7 (12)
COPD 8 (5) 4 (3.5) 4 (7)
Cardiorespiratory arrest 3 (2) 3 (3) 0 (0)
Acute-on-chronic respiratory failure 2 (1) 2 (2) 0 (0)
Neuromuscular disease 1 (0.6) 0 (0) 1 (2)
Other 31 (18) 19 (17) 12 (20)
Ignored 2 (1) 1 (1) 1 (2)
Missing data 6 (3)    
pH at baseline 7.38 ± 0.1 7.38 ± 0.1 7.38 ± 0.05
PaCO2 at baseline (mmHg) 38.9 ± 8.9 39.8 ± 9.9 37.3 ± 6.3
HCO3 at baseline (mEq/L) 22.9 ± 5 22.8 ± 5.3 22.8 ± 4.7

NIPPV - noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; SAPS - Simplified Acute Physiology Score; ICU - intensive care unit; ALI - acute lung injury; ARDS - acute respiratory distress syndrome; COPD - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PaCO2 - partial pressure of carbon dioxide; HCO3 - bicarbonate. 7-test and chi-square test used as appropriate. The results are expressed in number (percentages) and mean ± standard deviation.

Table 1 - Baseline characteristics in patients treated with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the intensive care unit according to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation outcome

The main reasons for the use of mechanical ventilation prior to the use of NIPPV were hemodynamic instability (33%), acute respiratory failure (24%) and surgery (18%). The median (IQR) time of use of invasive mechanical ventilation was 4 (1 - 8) days. Noninvasive pressure ventilation features are presented in table 2. BIPAP Vision® and continuous positive airway pressure flow generators were the most commonly used equipment. The main interface was the orofacial mask.

Table 2 - Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation features according to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation outcome
Variables All NIPPV patients N = 174 NIPPV success N = 114 NIPPV Failure N = 60
Type of equipment      
    BIPAP Vision 75 (43) 43 (38) 32 (53)
    BIPAP ST-D 30 11 (6) 8 (7) 3 (5)
    CPAP flow generator 74 (42) 53 (46) 21 (35)
    ICU ventilator 12 (7) 7 (6) 5 (8)
    Other 2 (1) 2 (2) 0
Type of interface      
    Oronasal mask 162 (93) 104 (91) 58 (97)
    Facial 11 (6) 9 (8) 2 (3)
    Nasal 1 (0.6) 1 (0.9) 0 (0)
Duration of NIPPV (hours) 34 (17 - 68) 30 (16 - 55) 50 (22 - 76)
NIPPV parameters in the last day      
    CPAP (mmHg) 9.6 ± 1.2 9.6 ± 1.1 9.7 ± 1.6
    IPAP (mmHg) 14.2 ± 2.3 13.7 ± 2.1 15 ± 2.3
    EPAP (mmHg) 9.3 ± 2.1 8.9 ± 1.8 10 ± 2.4
    FiO2 (%) 36 ± 12 33 ± 9.8 41 ± 15

NIPPV - noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; CPAP - continuous positive airway pressure; ICU- intensive care unit; IPAP - inspiratory positive airway pressure; EPAP - expiratory positive airway pressure; FiO2 - fraction of inspired oxygen. The results are expressed in number (percentages) and mean ± standard deviation.

Table 2 - Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation features according to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation outcome

NIPPV after extubation was applied in three situations: a new acute respiratory event [46 cases (26%)], early weaning [17 cases (10%)], and preventive NIPPV application [111 cases (64%)]. The time from extubation to initiation of NIPPV was recorded in days. A total of 121 patients (69%) received NIPPV support on the same day as extubation, and 53 (31%) received NIPPV between one and two days later.

During NIPPV support, the equipment was changed in some cases. At the beginning of NIPPV, the most commonly used device was a continuous positive airway pressure flow generator (45%) followed by BIPAP Vision® (32%). However, on the last day of NIPPV, BIPAP Vision® was more frequently used (42%).

All of the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation final parameters were higher in the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure group [inspiratory positive airway pressure: 15.0 versus 13.7cmH2O (p = 0.015), expiratory positive airway pressure: 10.0 versus 8.9cmH2O (p = 0.027), and FiO2: 41 versus 33% (p = 0.014)]. The mean intensive care unit length of stay was longer (24 versus 13 days), p < 0.001, and the intensive care unit mortality rate was higher (55 versus 10%), p < 0.001 in the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure group.

During the period of NIPPV use, 18% of patients presented with intolerance or excessive flow leakage, and treatment impairment occurred in 4%. NIPPV-related complications occurred in seven patients (five with vomiting, one with abdominal distention and one with skin lesions). The nosocomial pneumonia rate was 6%.

The NIPPV failure rate was 34%. The median time between extubation and reintubation was 2 (1 - 4) days. The main reasons for reintubation (NIPPV failure) were acute respiratory failure (48%) and decreased level of consciousness (22%). NIPPV failure did not differ according to indication: 32% were in the ARF after extubation group, 29% in the early NIPPV group and 35% in the preventive NIPPV group.

Patients with NIPPV failure presented a higher rate of tracheostomy [14 (23%) versus 0 (0%) patients, p < 0.001], a higher ICU length of stay [24 ± 15 versus 13 ± 7 days, p < 0.001], and a higher ICU mortality rate [33 (55%) versus11 (10%), p < 0.001].

Independent variables were selected based on their clinical relevance, and continuous variables were dichotomized based on cutoff values calculated by ROC curves. The predictive power of all variables was not high. Area under the ROC curves, sensitivity and specificity calculated values are presented in table 3.

Table 3 - Receiver operating characteristics curves results
Variables Cutoff values Sensitivity (%) (95%CI) Specificity (%) (95%CI) AUC (95%CI)
Age 59.5 63 (52; 75) 54 (44; 63) 0.56 (0.47; 0.65)
SAPS II score 36.5 70 (58; 80) 45 (36; 53) 0.59 (0.50; 0.68)
EPAP 9.5 71 (55; 84) 50 (36; 64) 0.64 (0.53; 0.76)
IPAP 13.5 81 (64; 93) 42 (28; 54) 0.64 (0.52; 0.76)
FiO2 (%) 37.5 57 (40; 73) 68 (54; 82) 0.65 (0.53; 0.78)

AUC - area under the receiver operating characteristic curves; 95%CI - 95% confidence interval; SAPS - Simplified Acute Physiology Score; EPAP - expiratory positive airway pressure; IPAP - inspiratory positive airway pressure; FiO2 - fraction of inspired oxygen.

Table 3 - Receiver operating characteristics curves results

Possible associations between the explanatory variables and dependent variables were also investigated. For this reason, the odds ratio of each variable was calculated, as presented in table 4. The multi-collinearity was investigated, and all the variance inflation factors were smaller than 2.

Table 4 - Univariate analysis performed prior to the logistic regression
Variable OR (95% CI) p value*
Sex 0.79 (0.39 - 1.57) 0.522
Nasotracheal aspiration (yes or no) 1.69 (0.85 - 3.36) 0.108
Age ≥ 60 2.02 (1.01 - 4.06) 0.037
SAPS II > 36.5 1.88 (0.93 - 3.91) 0.073
Time to NIPPV start (days, 0 versus ≥1) 0.67 (0.30 - 1.41) 0.300
IPAP ≥ 13.5cmH2O 2.98 (0.96 - 10.48) 0.051
EPAP ≥ 9.5cmH2O 2.42 (0.86 - 7.21) 0.069
FiO2 ≥ 0.37 2.76 (0.96 - 8.18) 0.054

SAPS - Simplified Acute Physiology Score; NIPPV - noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; IPAP - inspiratory positive airway pressure; EPAP - expiratory positive airway pressure; FiO2 - fraction of inspired oxygen.

* Fisher’s exact test.

Table 4 - Univariate analysis performed prior to the logistic regression

The variables selected to comprise the initial logistic regression model were need for nasotracheal suctioning (yes or no), age (< 60 or ≥ 60 years old), SAPS II score (< 36.5 or ≥ 36.5), expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) level on the last day of NIPPV (< 9.5 or ≥ 9.5cmH2O), inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) level on the last day of NIPPV (IPAP < 13.5 or ≥ 13.5cmH2O), fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) level on the last day of NIPPV (FiO2 < 0.37 or ≥ 0.37), and time from extubation to NIPPV start (on the same day or ≥ 1 day). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test found a good model fit (p = 0.999). After fitting, the logistic regression model allowed us to state that patients with IPAP ≥ 13.5cmH2O on the last day of NIPPV support are three times more likely to experience NIPPV failure compared with individuals with IPAP < 13.5 (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 1.01 - 10.52, p value = 0.040).

DISCUSSION

The use of noninvasive ventilation after planned extubation is part of clinical practice worldwide.(1-4,15) In a study by Carlucci et al.,(16) the rate of NIPPV in 52 ICUs was 8%. In our hospital, we estimated almost twice that rate (15%). In a cohort study over six years, Harris et al.(17) concluded that the rate of NIPPV use has increased over time. As we observed, the use of NIPPV after extubation is also high. In our study population, NIPPV after extubation accounted for almost half of all NIPPV use. The literature on this issue has presented conflicting conclusions. In summary, randomized clinical trials with a preventive approach had better results, with lower NIPPV failure or reintubation rates, as shown in some studies(6,10,12,17-20) that had reintubation rates from 8 to 11%. On the other hand, Esteban et al.(14) found that NIPPV was not effective for averting ARF after extubation, as they observed a reintubation rate of 48%. Few meta-analyses have focused on NIPPV after extubation. Burns et al.(7) and Zhu et al.(20) concluded that NIPPV had positive effects on mortality and ventilator-associated pneumonia. They also found that there is insufficient evidence to definitively recommend the use of NIPPV to avoid extubation failure(20) and suggested that the benefits of NIPPV on the weaning process need to be elucidated.(7) Glossop et al.(21) concluded that NIPPV reduces the ICU length of stay and instances of pneumonia when used in post-surgical patients and as a weaning method. In addition, they found that it reduces the reintubation rate and length of hospital stay in post-surgical patients, suggesting that NIPPV could be useful for patients who may deteriorate after major surgery. Lin et al.(22) corroborates that NIPPV is not beneficial in those cases, while early NIPPV application after planned extubation decreased the reintubation, ICU mortality and hospital mortality rates.

We estimated that the NIPPV failure rate after extubation was high (34%) and the main cause of NIPPV failure was a new event of ARF. NIPPV failure after extubation did not differ according to NIPPV indication (i.e., ARF initiation).

In randomized clinical trials, we observe that the reintubation rate is lower than in observational studies. Esteban et al.(14) showed a high reintubation rate, but we noticed that the inclusion criteria differed from other studies; specifically, patients were included after ARF initiation. All other randomized clinical trials had a preventive approach and obtained lower reintubation rates. In cohort studies, we observed a reintubation rate of 40% in two studies.(16,23) We noticed that, except for the study by Esteban et al.,(14) randomized clinical trials have presented lower reintubation rates than observational studies. During the period of data collection, the intensive care units included in our study did not have a standardized protocol of weaning or NIPPV use after extubation, and we did not observe any difference between reintubation rates in a group of patients who used NIPPV at an early stage or immediately after extubation.

Because there was not a standardized protocol of weaning, clinical decisions regarding NIPPV parameters, target physiological parameters and reintubation were made by the ICU team. In the hospital where the study was carried out, the ICU team usually follows the recommendations in the literature,(23) such as reintubation in the case of a respiratory rate over 25 breaths per minute, peripheral oxygenation under 90% with high FiO2 and pH < 7.25. However, these parameters were not controlled across the units.

Antonelli et al.(24) observed that there are many risk factors for NIPPV failure in ARF and found that a SAPS II score ≥ 35, the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia were independent factors of failure.

We estimated that levels of IPAP > 13.5cmH2O are associated with NIPPV failure. Rana et al.(25) did not find any association between IPAP and EPAP levels and NIPPV outcome. They studied a group of acute lung injury patients in a tertiary care center. However, the IPAP and EPAP levels were not high, with a median IPAP of 12 to 13, and EPAP of 5 to 5.5cmH2O. NIPPV parameters were collected from charts during the study course, but we could not identify how that information was managed. Other studies concerning NIPPV after extubation did not evaluate these parameters.(22) Our results showed that failure group patients presented higher levels of NIPPV parameters at the last day of NIPPV use, suggesting that patients with higher NIPPV pressure levels were more likely to fail.

The elevated IPAP levels might indicate that those patients presented unfavorable pulmonary condition, such as poorer respiratory mechanics, muscle inefficiency, higher respiratory work of breathing, higher dead space, or even systemic manifestations that would increase ventilator demand, including metabolic acidosis and shock, although these variables were not controlled in our study. We suggest that IPAP might be a good marker for NIPPV outcome, but our data do not support that IPAP ≥ 13.5cmH2O is a cutoff value for NIPPV failure. The heterogeneity of the study population and design are not appropriate to answer this question. On the other hand, these results raise some important questions, such as whether it is possible to identify cutoff values of NIPPV parameters to prevent poor NIPPV outcomes, such as late reintubation.

We observed that patients who experienced a NIPPV failure after extubation presented poorer ICU outcomes, such as a higher tracheostomy rate, longer ICU length of stay and greater mortality rate. Data from the literature are conflicting on this issue, but the studies that we researched have some interesting features that can explain these findings. The results of Esteban et al.(14) and Su et al.(10) are similar. The authors did not find any difference in outcomes, but there was a high NIPPV failure rate (48%) in the study by Esteban et al.(14) and a low extubation failure rate in the study by Su et al.,(10) which was 13% in the control group and 14.9% in NIPPV group. In both studies, we do not observe any advantages of NIPPV, and, obviously, there was no impact on clinical outcomes. On the other hand, the studies that estimated NIPPV efficacy showed improved ICU outcomes. Girault et al.(6) showed that NIPPV reduced the duration of weaning; Ferrer et al.(9) estimated that NIPPV improved the 90-day survival and reduced reintubation rates, and Trevisan et al.(11) found that the use of NIPPV when weaning patients with spontaneous breathing trial failures reduced the pneumonia rate and the need for a tracheostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was performed at a single university hospital in Brazil, and we believe that our results may not be generalizable. Our results indicate that patients with inspiratory positive airway pressure ≥ 13.5cmH2O on the last day of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation support are three times more likely to experience noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure, and that some points should be considered for future research, such as the identification of a reliable cutoff to better indicate noninvasive positive pressure ventilation discontinuation, based on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation parameters and the patient’s severity, to avoid delayed reintubation and the poor outcomes associated with this procedure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the staff of the Clinics Hospital Intensive Care Units, especially the physiotherapists of these units and the Department of Physiotherapy, Communication Sciences & Disorders, and Occupational Therapy, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo. The authors also thank Mr. Felipe Granado and Mr. Fabio Montesano, who are statisticians at Universidade Federal de São Paulo, for statistical support.

REFERENCES

Bierer GB, Soo Hoo GW. Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a national survey of Veterans Affairs hospitals. Respir Care. 2009;54(10):1313-20. Link PubMed
Demoule A, Girou E, Richard JC, Taillé S, Brochard L. Increased use of noninvasive ventilation in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(11):1747-55. Link DOILink PubMed
Sharma S, Agarwal R, Aggarwal AN, Gupta D, Jindal SK. A survey of noninvasive ventilation practices in a respiratory ICU of North India. Respir Care. 2012;57(7):1145-53. Link DOILink PubMed
Wang S, Singh B, Tian L, Biehl M, Krastev IL, Kojicic M, et al. Epidemiology of noninvasive mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure-a retrospective population-based study. BMC Emerg Med. 2013;13:6. Link DOILink PubMed
Ferrer M, Sellarés J, Valencia M, Carrillo A, Gonzalez G, Badia JR, et al. Non-invasive ventilation after extubation in hypercapnic patients with chronic respiratory disorders: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1082-8. Link DOILink PubMed
Girault C, Bubenheim M, Abroug F, Diehl JL, Elatrous S, Beuret P, Richecoeur J, L'Her E, Hilbert G, Capellier G, Rabbat A, Besbes M, Guérin C, Guiot P, Bénichou J, Bonmarchand G; VENISE Trial Group. Noninvasive ventilation and weaning in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(6):672-9. Link DOILink PubMed
Burns KE, Meade MO, Premji A, Adhikari NK. Noninvasive ventilation as a weaning strategy for mechanical ventilation in adults with respiratory failure: a Cochrane systematic review. CMAJ. 2014;186(3):E112-22. Review. Link DOILink PubMed
Agarwal R, Aggarwal AN, Gupta D, Jindal SK. Role of noninvasive positivepressure ventilation in postextubation respiratory failure: a meta-analysis. Respir Care. 2007;52(11):1472-9. Link PubMed
Ferrer M, Valencia M, Nicolas JM, Bernadich O, Badia JR, Torres A. Early noninvasive ventilation averts extubation failure in patients at risk: a randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173(2):164-70. Link DOILink PubMed
Su CL, Chiang LL, Yang SH, Lin HI, Cheng KC, Huang YC, et al. Preventive use of noninvasive ventilation after extubation: a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Respir Care. 2012;57(2):204-10. Link PubMed
Trevisan CE, Vieira SR; Research Group in Mechanical Ventilation Weaning. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation may be useful in treating patients who fail weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation: a randomized clinical trial. Crit Care. 2008;12(2):R51. Link DOILink PubMed
Nava S, Gregoretti C, Fanfulla F, Squadrone E, Grassi M, Carlucci A, et al. Noninvasive ventilation to prevent respiratory failure after extubation in high-risk patients. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(11):2465-70. Link DOILink PubMed
José A, Oliveira LR, Dias EC, Fuin DB, Leite LG, Guerra Gde S, et al. [Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure after tracheal extubation]. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2006;18(4):338-43. Portuguese. Link PubMed
Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Ferguson ND, Arabi Y, Apezteguía C, González M, et al. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation for respiratory failure after extubation. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(24):2452-60. Link DOILink PubMed
Yamauchi LY, Travaglia TC, Bernardes SR, Figueiroa MC, Tanaka C, Fu C. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in clinical practice at a large university-affiliated Brazilian hospital. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012;67(7):767-72. Link DOILink PubMed
Carlucci A, Richard JC, Wysocki M, Lepage E, Brochard L; SRLF Collaborative Group on Mechanical Ventilation. Noninvasive versus conventional mechanical ventilation. An epidemiologic survey. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;163(4):874-80. Link DOILink PubMed
Harris C, Saskin R, Burns KE. Noninvasive ventilation initiation in clinical practice: A six-year prospective, observational study. Can Respir J. 2010;17(3):123-31. Link PubMed
Nery P, Pastore L, Carvalho CR, Schettino G. Shortening ventilatory support with a protocol based on daily extubation screening and noninvasive ventilation in selected patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(5):759-66. Link DOILink PubMed
Ornico SR, Lobo SM, Sanches HS, Deberaldini M, Tófoli LT, Vidal AM, et al. Noninvasive ventilation immediately after extubation improves weaning outcome after acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2013;17(2):R39. Link DOILink PubMed
Zhu F, Liu ZL, Long X, Wu XD, Zhou J, Bai CX, et al. Effect of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation on weaning success in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126(7):1337-43. Link PubMed
Glossop AJ, Shephard N, Bryden DC, Mills GH. Non-invasive ventilation for weaning, avoiding reintubation after extubation and in the postoperative period: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaest. 2012;109(3):305-14. Erratum in Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(1):164. Shepherd, N [corrected to Shephard, N]. Link DOI
Lin C, Yu H, Fan H, Li Z. The efficacy of noninvasive ventilation in managing postextubation respiratory failure: a meta-analysis. Heart Lung. 2014;43(2):99-104. Link DOILink PubMed
Schettino G, Altobelli N, Kacmarek RM. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure outside clinical trials: experience at the Massachusetts General Hospital. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(2):441-7. Link DOILink PubMed
Antonelli M, Conti G, Moro ML, Esquinas A, Gonzalez-Diaz G, Confalonieri M, et al. Predictors of failure of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a multi-center study. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(11):1718-28. Link DOILink PubMed
Rana S, Jenad H, Gay PC, Buck CF, Hubmayr RD, Gajic O. Failure of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute lung injury: observational cohort study. Crit Care. 2006;10(3):R79. Link DOILink PubMed

Editor responsável: Carmen Valente Barbas

Submission On-line

Indexed in

Scopus

SciELO

LILACS

Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB

Rua Arminda nº 93 - 7º andar - Vila Olímpia - São Paulo, SP, Brasil - Tel./Fax: (55 11) 5089-2642 | e-mail: rbti.artigos@amib.org.br

GN1 - Systems and Publications