The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 339:429-435 August 13, 1998 Number 7
NextNext

A Comparison of Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation and Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure
Massimo Antonelli, M.D., Giorgio Conti, M.D., Monica Rocco, M.D., Maurizio Bufi, M.D., Roberto Alberto De Blasi, M.D., Gabriella Vivino, M.D., Alessandro Gasparetto, M.D., and Gianfranco Umberto Meduri, M.D.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background and Methods The role of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation delivered through a face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure is uncertain. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as compared with endotracheal intubation with conventional mechanical ventilation in 64 patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who required mechanical ventilation.

Results Within the first hour of ventilation, 20 of 32 patients (62 percent) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and 15 of 32 (47 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group had an improved ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) (P=0.21). Ten patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group subsequently required endotracheal intubation. Seventeen patients in the conventional-ventilation group (53 percent) and 23 in the noninvasive-ventilation group (72 percent) survived their stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.4; P=0.19); 16 patients in the conventional-ventilation group and 22 patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group were discharged from the hospital. More patients in the conventional-ventilation group had serious complications (66 percent vs. 38 percent, P=0.02) and had pneumonia or sinusitis related to the endotracheal tube (31 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.003). Among the survivors, patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group had shorter periods of ventilation (P=0.006) and shorter stays in the intensive care unit (P=0.002).

Conclusions In patients with acute respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation was as effective as conventional ventilation in improving gas exchange and was associated with fewer serious complications and shorter stays in the intensive care unit.


Source Information

From the Institute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Università La Sapienza, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome (M.A., G.C., M.R., M.B., R.A.D.B., G.V., A.G.); and the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Lung Research Program, Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Division, Memphis (G.U.M.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Antonelli at the Istituto di Anestesiologia e Rianimazione, Università La Sapienza, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161 Rome, Italy.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation
Mehta S., Lapinsky S. E., Antonelli M., Conti G.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1999; 340:150-151, Jan 14, 1999. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.