Published in

MDPI, Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(11), p. 2504, 2022

DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092504

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Non-Invasive Ventilation as a Therapy Option for Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Acute Cardiopulmonary Oedema in Emergency Medical Services

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

In this observational prospective multicenter study conducted between October 2016 and October 2018, we tested the hypothesis that the use of prehospital non-invasive ventilation (phNIV) to treat patients with acute respiratory insufficiency (ARI) caused by severe acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and acute cardiopulmonary oedema (ACPE) is effective, time-efficient and safe. The data were collected at four different physician response units and three admitting hospitals in a German EMS system. Patients with respiratory failure due to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute cardiopulmonary oedema were enrolled. A total of 545 patients were eligible for the final analysis. Patients were treated with oxygen supplementation, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation. The primary outcomes were defined as changes in the clinical parameters and the in-hospital course. The secondary outcomes included time efficiency, peri-interventional complications, treatment failure rate, and side-effects. Oxygenation under phNIV improved equally to endotracheal intubation (ETI), and more effectively in comparison to standard oxygen therapy (SOT) (paO2 SOT vs. non-invasive ventilation (NIV) vs. ETI: 82 mmHg vs. 125 mmHg vs. 135 mmHg, p-value SOT vs. NIV < 0.0001). In a matched subgroup analysis phNIV was accompanied by a reduced time of mechanical ventilation (phNIV: 1.8 d vs. ETI: 4.2 d) and a shortened length of stay at the intensive care unit (3.4 d vs. 5.8 d). The data support the hypothesis that the treatment of severe AECOPD/ACPE-induced ARI using prehospital NIV is effective, time efficient and safe. Compared to ETI, a matched comparison supports the hypothesis that prehospital implementation of NIV may provide benefits for an in-hospital course.