比较对急性高碳酸血症呼吸衰竭的慢性阻塞性肺病患者使用高流量鼻插管氧疗与无创通气的疗效

Alaa Gamal Mashad, Mohamed Farrag, Maryam Ali, Dina Ruby
{"title":"比较对急性高碳酸血症呼吸衰竭的慢性阻塞性肺病患者使用高流量鼻插管氧疗与无创通气的疗效","authors":"Alaa Gamal Mashad, Mohamed Farrag, Maryam Ali, Dina Ruby","doi":"10.1186/s43168-024-00326-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently employed as a treatment option for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) resulting from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Limited research has substantiated the claims made in recent studies regarding the feasibility of employing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Our study assessed the outcome of using HFNC versus NIV for COPD patients with AHRF. Eighty COPD patients with AHRF were confined to the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) at Ain-Shams University Hospitals from December 2021 to 2023 and subdivided into two groups (40/group), where the first group was placed on NIV while the second group was placed on HFNC. Data during their hospital stay as demographic data, vital data, arterial blood gases, device duration, treatment failure, and mortality were recorded. The majority were males with mean age 63.75 ± 9.05 years along with treatment failure and complications 25%, 12.5.% in NIV versus 45%, and zero% in HFNC, respectively, with longer hospital stay in NIV 10–15 days to 7–10 days in HFNC, and with no difference in mortality rate in both groups. Both modalities NIV and HFNC were effective for treating COPD with AHRF. However, NIV group was significantly superior than HFNC along with apparently faster improvement in ventilatory and respiratory status especially in high CO2 level while less complications and duration of hospital stay in HFNC with no difference in mortality in both groups.","PeriodicalId":22426,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the outcome of using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure\",\"authors\":\"Alaa Gamal Mashad, Mohamed Farrag, Maryam Ali, Dina Ruby\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43168-024-00326-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently employed as a treatment option for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) resulting from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Limited research has substantiated the claims made in recent studies regarding the feasibility of employing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Our study assessed the outcome of using HFNC versus NIV for COPD patients with AHRF. Eighty COPD patients with AHRF were confined to the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) at Ain-Shams University Hospitals from December 2021 to 2023 and subdivided into two groups (40/group), where the first group was placed on NIV while the second group was placed on HFNC. Data during their hospital stay as demographic data, vital data, arterial blood gases, device duration, treatment failure, and mortality were recorded. The majority were males with mean age 63.75 ± 9.05 years along with treatment failure and complications 25%, 12.5.% in NIV versus 45%, and zero% in HFNC, respectively, with longer hospital stay in NIV 10–15 days to 7–10 days in HFNC, and with no difference in mortality rate in both groups. Both modalities NIV and HFNC were effective for treating COPD with AHRF. However, NIV group was significantly superior than HFNC along with apparently faster improvement in ventilatory and respiratory status especially in high CO2 level while less complications and duration of hospital stay in HFNC with no difference in mortality in both groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22426,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43168-024-00326-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Bronchology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43168-024-00326-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无创通气(NIV)经常被用作慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)导致的急性高碳酸血症呼吸衰竭(AHRF)的治疗方案。最近的研究对使用高流量鼻插管(HFNC)的可行性进行了有限的证实。我们的研究评估了对患有慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的 AHRF 患者使用 HFNC 与 NIV 的效果。从 2021 年 12 月到 2023 年 12 月,艾因-沙姆大学医院呼吸重症监护室(RICU)收治了 80 名慢性阻塞性肺疾病 AHRF 患者,并将他们分成两组(每组 40 人),第一组使用 NIV,第二组使用 HFNC。住院期间的数据包括人口统计学数据、生命体征数据、动脉血气、装置持续时间、治疗失败和死亡率。大多数患者为男性,平均年龄(63.75 ± 9.05)岁,治疗失败率和并发症发生率在 NIV 中分别为 25%和 12.5%,而在 HFNC 中分别为 45%和 0%,住院时间在 NIV 中为 10-15 天,而在 HFNC 中为 7-10 天,两组死亡率无差异。NIV 和 HFNC 两种方式都能有效治疗 COPD 合并 AHRF。然而,NIV 组明显优于 HFNC 组,其通气和呼吸状况的改善速度更快,尤其是在二氧化碳浓度较高的情况下,而 HFNC 组的并发症更少,住院时间更短,两组的死亡率无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing the outcome of using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure
Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently employed as a treatment option for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) resulting from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Limited research has substantiated the claims made in recent studies regarding the feasibility of employing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Our study assessed the outcome of using HFNC versus NIV for COPD patients with AHRF. Eighty COPD patients with AHRF were confined to the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) at Ain-Shams University Hospitals from December 2021 to 2023 and subdivided into two groups (40/group), where the first group was placed on NIV while the second group was placed on HFNC. Data during their hospital stay as demographic data, vital data, arterial blood gases, device duration, treatment failure, and mortality were recorded. The majority were males with mean age 63.75 ± 9.05 years along with treatment failure and complications 25%, 12.5.% in NIV versus 45%, and zero% in HFNC, respectively, with longer hospital stay in NIV 10–15 days to 7–10 days in HFNC, and with no difference in mortality rate in both groups. Both modalities NIV and HFNC were effective for treating COPD with AHRF. However, NIV group was significantly superior than HFNC along with apparently faster improvement in ventilatory and respiratory status especially in high CO2 level while less complications and duration of hospital stay in HFNC with no difference in mortality in both groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severity, mortality, and incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19 patients Accuracy of convex probe EBUS-TBNA versus FDG-PET/CT imaging in diagnosis and mediastinal staging of lung cancer patients; an Egyptian Experience Role of pleural manometry and transthoracic ultrasonography to predict entrapped lung Comparing the outcome of using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure The role of screening of patients proved to have gastroesophageal reflux disease by upper gastrointestinal endoscope for early detection of interstitial lung diseases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1