2012•中国综合临床Requires access

Analysis of the efficacy of invasive positive pressure ventilation and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in AECOPD patients

Mao-xing Qu, Jian Yu

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Objective To compare the different efficacy between invasive positive pressure ventilation and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation of acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Methods Patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomly divided into invasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation ( IPPV ) group ( n =35 ) and noninvasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation (NPPV)group (n =37 ),and clinical data before and after treatment were analyzed retrospectively.Results After 2 hours of invasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation,pH,arterial oxygen partial pressure( PaO2 ),arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure ( PaCO2 ),heart rate ( HR ),respiratory rate(RR),Glasgow coma scale(GCS) score were better than those before treatment[ pH:(7.35 ± 0.05)vs ( 7.23 ± 0.02 ) ; PaO2:( 92.4 ± 14.5 ) mm Hg vs ( 51.3 ± 9.4 ) mm Hg; PaCO2:( 56.0 ± 7.7 ) mm Hg vs( 82.6 ±8.1)mm Hg;GCS:(10.5 ± 1.1)points vs(8.5 ± 1.2)points;HR:(110 ± 12) times/min vs(131 ± 19) times/min ; RR:( 26 ± 4) times/min vs ( 35 ± 8 ) times/min ; P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 ].But in NPPV group,only the PaO2,HR,RR were better than those before treatment [ PaO2:( 78.6 ± 8.8 )mm Hg vs ( 53.1 ± 8.9 ) mm Hg; HR:( 110 ± 24) times/min vs ( 128 ± 23 ) times/min ; RR:( 26 ± 5 ) times/min vs ( 36 ± 9 ) times/min; P < 0.05 ].And after 6 hours,pH,PaCO2,GCS score were significantly better in NPPV group [ pH:( 7.35 ± 0.03 ) vs ( 7.25 ±0.01 ) ;PaCO2:(59.0 ±6.3) mm Hg vs(79.8 ±7.0) mm Hg;GCS:( 10.6 ± 2.0) points vs( 8.5 ±2.5) points;P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 ].There was no difference on the days in ICU [ ( 15 ± 4) d vs ( 14 ± 4 ) d,t =1.102,P >0.05 ],the duration of mechanical ventilation[ ( 168 ± 25 )d vs( 170 ± 23 )d,t =1.214,P > 0.05 ],the mortality in ICU (22.8% (8/28) vs 21.6% (8/37),x2 =0.016,P > 0.05) between IPPV group and NPPV group.Conclusion IPPV can improve the situation of AECOPD quickly,but in NPPV group some patients need intubation.However,there was no significant difference on the days in ICU,the duration of mechanical ventilation,the mortality in ICU between IPPV and NPPV. Key words: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Invasive positive pressure ventilation; Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective To compare the different efficacy between invasive positive pressure ventilation and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation of acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Methods Patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomly divided into invasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation ( IPPV ) group ( n =35 ) and noninvasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation (NPPV)group (n =37 ),and clinical data before and after treatment were analyzed retrospectively.Results After 2 hours of invasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation,pH,arterial oxygen partial pressure( PaO2 ),arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure ( PaCO2 ),heart rate ( HR ),respiratory rate(RR),Glasgow coma scale(GCS) score were better than those before treatment[ pH:(7.35 ± 0.05)vs ( 7.23 ± 0.02 ) ; PaO2:( 92.4 ± 14.5 ) mm Hg vs ( 51.3 ± 9.4 ) mm Hg; PaCO2:( 56.0 ± 7.7 ) mm Hg vs( 82.6 ±8.1)mm Hg;GCS:(10.5 ± 1.1)points vs(8.5 ± 1.2)points;HR:(110 ± 12) times/min vs(131 ± 19) times/min ; RR:( 26 ± 4) times/min vs ( 35 ± 8 ) times/min ; P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 ].But in NPPV group,only the PaO2,HR,RR were better than those before treatment [ PaO2:( 78.6 ± 8.8 )mm Hg vs ( 53.1 ± 8.9 ) mm Hg; HR:( 110 ± 24) times/min vs ( 128 ± 23 ) times/min ; RR:( 26 ± 5 ) times/min vs ( 36 ± 9 ) times/min; P < 0.05 ].And after 6 hours,pH,PaCO2,GCS score were significantly better in NPPV group [ pH:( 7.35 ± 0.03 ) vs ( 7.25 ±0.01 ) ;PaCO2:(59.0 ±6.3) mm Hg vs(79.8 ±7.0) mm Hg;GCS:( 10.6 ± 2.0) points vs( 8.5 ±2.5) points;P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 ].There was no difference on the days in ICU [ ( 15 ± 4) d vs ( 14 ± 4 ) d,t =1.102,P >0.05 ],the duration of mechanical ventilation[ ( 168 ± 25 )d vs( 170 ± 23 )d,t =1.214,P > 0.05 ],the mortality in ICU (22.8% (8/28) vs 21.6% (8/37),x2 =0.016,P > 0.05) between IPPV group and NPPV group.Conclusion IPPV can improve the situation of AECOPD quickly,but in NPPV group some patients need intubation.However,there was no significant difference on the days in ICU,the duration of mechanical ventilation,the mortality in ICU between IPPV and NPPV. Key words: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Invasive positive pressure ventilation; Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Objective To compare the different efficacy between invasive positive pressure ventilation and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation of acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Methods Patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomly divided into invasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation ( IPPV ) group ( n =35 ) and noninvasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation (NPPV)group (n =37 ),and clinical data before and after treatment were analyzed retrospectively.Results After 2 hours of invasive positive pressure mechanical ventilation,pH,arterial oxygen partial pressure( PaO2 ),arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure ( PaCO2 ),heart rate ( HR ),respiratory rate(RR),Glasgow coma scale(GCS) score were better than those before treatment[ pH:(7.35 ± 0.05)vs ( 7.23 ± 0.02 ) ; PaO2:( 92.4 ± 14.5 ) mm Hg vs ( 51.3 ± 9.4 ) mm Hg; PaCO2:( 56.0 ± 7.7 ) mm Hg vs( 82.6 ±8.1)mm Hg;GCS:(10.5 ± 1.1)points vs(8.5 ± 1.2)points;HR:(110 ± 12) times/min vs(131 ± 19) times/min ; RR:( 26 ± 4) times/min vs ( 35 ± 8 ) times/min ; P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 ].But in NPPV group,only the PaO2,HR,RR were better than those before treatment [ PaO2:( 78.6 ± 8.8 )mm Hg vs ( 53.1 ± 8.9 ) mm Hg; HR:( 110 ± 24) times/min vs ( 128 ± 23 ) times/min ; RR:( 26 ± 5 ) times/min vs ( 36 ± 9 ) times/min; P < 0.05 ].And after 6 hours,pH,PaCO2,GCS score were significantly better in NPPV group [ pH:( 7.35 ± 0.03 ) vs ( 7.25 ±0.01 ) ;PaCO2:(59.0 ±6.3) mm Hg vs(79.8 ±7.0) mm Hg;GCS:( 10.6 ± 2.0) points vs( 8.5 ±2.5) points;P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 ].There was no difference on the days in ICU [ ( 15 ± 4) d vs ( 14 ± 4 ) d,t =1.102,P >0.05 ],the duration of mechanical ventilation[ ( 168 ± 25 )d vs( 170 ± 23 )d,t =1.214,P > 0.05 ],the mortality in ICU (22.8% (8/28) vs 21.6% (8/37),x2 =0.016,P > 0.05) between IPPV group and NPPV group.Conclusion IPPV can improve the situation of AECOPD quickly,but in NPPV group some patients need intubation.However,there was no significant difference on the days in ICU,the duration of mechanical ventilation,the mortality in ICU between IPPV and NPPV. Key words: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Invasive positive pressure ventilation; Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation

Key concepts: Medicine, Mechanical ventilation, Ventilation (architecture), Glasgow Coma Scale, Anesthesia, Exacerbation, Positive pressure ventilation, Arterial pH

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Analysis of the efficacy of invasive positive pressure ventilation and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in AECOPD patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens