Comparison of BPAP S/T and Average Volume-Assured Pressure Support Modes for Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research into the utility of average volume- assured pressure support (AVAPS), a volume-assured pressure-controlled mode, especially in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure. AIMS: This study aimed at a randomized comparison of AVAPS and bilevel positive airway pressure spontaneous/timed (BPAP S/T) modes in non-invasive mechanical ventilation application with hypercapnic respiratory failure patients in the emergency department. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. METHODS: Eighty of 140 patients admitted to the emergency department with hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring non-invasive mechanical ventilation were randomly assigned to the AVAPS or S/T groups (33 patients in the S/T group, 47 patients in the AVAPS group) using the sealed envelope method. Data of arterial blood gas, vital parameters, Glasgow Coma Score, additional treatment needs, and clinical outcomes were evaluated, and the treatment success rates of both groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients, 33 in the S/T and 47 in the AVAPS group, were analyzed in the study. The pH values improved in the AVAPS group compared to the baseline (0.07 [0.04-0.10] vs 0.03 [0.00-0.11]). PaCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) excretion was faster in the AVAPS group than in the S/T group in the first hour (10.20 mmHg [6.20-19.20] vs. 4.75 ([-] 0.83-16.88)). The comparison of blood gas measurements showed no significant differences between the groups regarding the changes in PaCO2 and pH values over time (P = .141 and P = .271, respectively). During the emergency department follow-up, 3 (6.4%) patients in the AVAPS group and 5 (15.2%) patients in the S/T group needed intubation [Relative risk: 0.42 (95% CI: 0.11 to 1.64), P = .21]. CONCLUSION: The AVAPS mode is as effective and safe as BPAP S/T in treating patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure in the emergency department.

Evaluation of the compliance between EEG monitoring (Bispectral IndexTM) and Ramsey Sedation Scale to measure the depth of sedation in the patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the compliance between electroencephalogram monitoring (Bispectral Index, BIS) and Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) to measure the depth of sedation in patients who underwent procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in an emergency department. This study also aimed to investigate the usefulness of this compliance for early diagnosis of complications. METHODS: A total of 54 consecutive patients during PSA in the emergency department were included in this study. The BIS and RSS scores at regular intervals and also all complications and interventions of these patients were evaluated. The compliance between the BIS and the RSS score was evaluated. The BIS scores of cases with complication and without complication were compared. RESULTS: The BIS and RSS scores exhibited a high correlation was detected between the average BIS and RSS scores at each time interval (r=-0.989, p<0.001). The BIS scores of the complicated and uncomplicated cases were different at 15 min after the procedure (p=0.019). The cases were divided into two groups according to the BIS scores <70 and ≥70; complication rates were higher in the BIS score <70 group during the procedure (p=0.037). CONCLUSION: In our study, a high correlation was detected between BIS monitoring and RSS scores. BIS monitoring for PSA can be used as a full-time, objective, and an alternative technique for person-dependent clinical scales and also as an indicator for early diagnosis of complications.