ABSTRACT
Continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are accepted treatments in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). The aim of the study was a comparison of effectiveness, safety, and management of NPPV in ACPE and AECOPD trying to find an approach for standard management in intensive care. Thirty patients with acute respiratory failure (14 due to ACPE, 16 due to AECOPD) were prospectively included into the study. If clinical stability could not be achieved by standard therapy (pharmacological therapy and oxygen) patients were treated by non-invasive ventilation (NPPV) using a BiPAP-Vision device in S/T-mode. During the first 90 min after the onset of NPPV respiratory and vital parameters were documented every 30 min. Additional relevant outcome parameters (need for intubation, duration of ICU stay, complications and mortality) were monitored. We found that 85.7% of the ACPE patients and 50.0% of the AECOPD patients were treated successfully with NPPV. Intubation rate was 31.2% in the AECOPD group and 14.3% in the ACPE group. 78.6% of the ACPE patients and 43.8% of the AECOPD patients were regularly discharged from hospital in a good condition. In the first 90 min of NIV, there was a significant amelioration of respiratory and other vital parameters. In ACPE patients there was a significant increase in PaO2 from 58.9 mmHg to 80.6 mmHg and of oxygen saturation (SaO2) from 85.1% to 93.1% without changing the inspiratory O2 concentration. This effect was comparable in the AECOPD group, but only could be achieved by increasing the inspiratory ventilation pressure. In the ACPE group inspiratory ventilation pressure could be reduced. In conclusion, in acute respiratory failure, ACPE patients comparably profit from NPPV as do patients with AECOPD, but the algorithm of titration for non-invasive ventilation pressure is different.
