Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Relating to Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema in an Intensive Care Unit / Ventilación mecánica no invasiva frente a presión positiva continua en la vía aérea en el manejo del edema pulmonar cardiogénico en una unidad de cuidados intensivos

Background: To compare the application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the treatment of patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: In a prospective, randomized, controlled study performed in an ICU, patients with CPE were assigned to NIV (n=56) or CPAP (n=54). Primary outcome was intubation rate. Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, improvement of gas exchange, complications, ICU and hospital mortality, and 28-day mortality. The outcomes were analyzed in hypercapnic patients (PaCO2 > 45 mmHg) with no underlying chronic lung disease. Results: Both devices led to similar clinical and gas exchange improvement; however, in the first 60 min of treatment a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio was observed in the NIV group (205±112 in NIV vs. 150±84 in CPAP, P=.02). The rate of intubation was similar in both groups (9% in NIV vs. 9% in CPAP, P=1.0). There were no differences in duration of ventilation, ICU and length of hospital stay. There were no significant differences in ICU, hospital and 28-d mortality between groups. In the hypercapnic group, there were no differences between NIV and CPAP. Conclusions: Either NIV or CPAP are recommended in patients with CPE in the ICU. Outcomes in the hypercapnic group with no chronic lung disease were similar using NIV or CPAP

Introducción: Comparar la efectividad de la ventilación no invasiva (VNI) frente a la presión positiva continúa en la vía aérea (CPAP) en pacientes ingresados por edema agudo de pulmón (EAP) cardiogénico en una unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Métodos: Ensayo clínico donde 56 pacientes fueron asignados a VNI y 54 pacientes a CPAP. El objetivo primario fue la tasa de intubación. Los objetivos secundarios fueron: duración de ventilación, estancia en UCI y en el hospital, mejoría gasométrica, complicaciones y mortalidad en UCI, hospitalaria y a los 28 días. Los objetivos fueron analizados en pacientes hipercápnicos (PaCO2 >45mmHg) sin patologia pulmonar. Resultados: Ambos dispositivos obtuvieron similar mejoría clínica y del intercambio gaseoso, sin embargo, la VNI mostró un aumento más rápido de la oxigenación (medido por el cociente PaO2/FiO2) en los primeros 60 minutos de aplicación (205 ± 112 en VNI vs. 150 ± 84 en CPAP, p= 0,02). La tasa de intubación fue similar en ambos grupos (9% en VNI vs. 9% en CPAP, p= 1,0). No hubo diferencias en la duración de la ventilación, ni en la estancia en UCI ni hospitalaria. Tampoco hubo diferencias significativas en la mortalidad en UCI, hospitalaria y a los 28 días entre ambos grupos. En el subgrupo de pacientes hipercápnicos tampoco se observaron diferencias significativas en los objetivos analizados. Conclusiones: La VNI como la CPAP se pueden emplear en pacientes con EAP en la UCI. En pacientes hipercápnicos sin patología pulmonar no se observa beneficio de la VNI sobre la CPAP

Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Relating to Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema in an Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: To compare the application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the treatment of patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled study performed in an ICU, patients with CPE were assigned to NIV (n=56) or CPAP (n=54). Primary outcome was intubation rate. Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, improvement of gas exchange, complications, ICU and hospital mortality, and 28-day mortality. The outcomes were analyzed in hypercapnic patients (PaCO2>45mmHg) with no underlying chronic lung disease. RESULTS: Both devices led to similar clinical and gas exchange improvement; however, in the first 60min of treatment a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio was observed in the NIV group (205±112 in NIV vs. 150±84 in CPAP, P=.02). The rate of intubation was similar in both groups (9% in NIV vs. 9% in CPAP, P=1.0). There were no differences in duration of ventilation, ICU and length of hospital stay. There were no significant differences in ICU, hospital and 28-d mortality between groups. In the hypercapnic group, there were no differences between NIV and CPAP. CONCLUSIONS: Either NIV or CPAP are recommended in patients with CPE in the ICU. Outcomes in the hypercapnic group with no chronic lung disease were similar using NIV or CPAP.