+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute respiratory failure



Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute respiratory failure



Journal of Hospital Medicine 8(4): 165-172



Limited evidence exists on the comparative effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) vs invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with respiratory failure. To characterize the use of NIV and IMV, and to compare the effectiveness of NIV vs IMV in AECOPD. Retrospective cohort study using data from the 2006-2008 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Emergency department visits for AECOPD with acute respiratory failure were identified with codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. The outcome measures were inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay, hospital charges, and complications. There were an estimated 101,000 visits annually for AECOPD with acute respiratory failure; 96% were admitted to the hospital. Of these, NIV use increased from 14% in 2006 to 16% in 2008 (P=0.049). Use of NIV, however, varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 0% to 100% with a median of 11%. Noninvasive ventilation was more often used in higher-case volume, Northeastern hospitals. In a propensity score analysis, NIV use, compared with IMV, was associated with lower inpatient mortality (risk ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.59), shortened hospital length of stay (-3.2 days; 95% CI: -3.4 to -2.9 days), lower hospital charges (-$35,012; 95% CI: -$36,848 to -$33,176), and lower risk of iatrogenic pneumothorax (0.05% vs 0.5%, P<0.001). Although NIV use is increasing in US hospitals, its adoption remains low and varies widely between hospitals. Our observational study suggests NIV appears to be more effective and safer than IMV for AECOPD in the real-world setting.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052211431

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23401469

DOI: 10.1002/jhm.2014


Related references

Comparative Effectiveness of Noninvasive and Invasive Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Critical Care Medicine 43(7): 1386-1394, 2015

Noninvasive ventilation in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease vs. other conditions: effectiveness and predictors of failure. Intensive Care Medicine 31(4): 533-539, 2005

Non-invasive mechanical ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease 48(2): 144-154, 1993

Non-invasive mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: correlates for success. Thorax 50(7): 755-757, 1995

Noninvasive ventilation using a mouthpiece in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory failure. Respiration; International Review of Thoracic Diseases 74(6): 632-639, 2007

Efficacy of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in the general ward in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admitted for hypercapnic acute respiratory failure and pH < 7.35: a feasibility pilot study. Internal Medicine Journal 45(5): 527-537, 2016

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in the weaning of patients with respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine 128(9): 721-728, 1998

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory failure. Current Opinion in Critical Care 2(1): 35-46, 1996

The application of improved Glasgow coma scale score of 15 as switching point for invasive noninvasive mechanical ventilation in treatment of severe respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue 23(4): 224-227, 2012

Shrinking the room for invasive mechanical ventilation in acute chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: yes, but must be sure to have opened windows for noninvasive ventilation. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 8: 313-314, 2013

Combination of chest physiotherapy and intermittent non-invasive mechanical ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with respiratory failure. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban 34(7): 655-658, 2011

Application of fiberoptic bronchscopy in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during sequential weaning of invasive-noninvasive mechanical ventilation. World Journal of Emergency Medicine 3(1): 29-34, 2012

Role of Noninvasive Ventilation Instituted in Hospitalizations of Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure. Chest Journal 145(3): 552a-1-552a-2, 2014

Non-invasive ventilation for respiratory failure due to acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in older patients. Age and Ageing 35(1): 75-79, 2005

Predictors of requirement of mechanical ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute respiratory failure. Lung India 30(3): 178-182, 2013