RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) or biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) to assist-control ventilation (A/C) as their primary mode of ventilatory support. The objective was to estimate if patients ventilated with APRV/BIPAP have a lower mortality. METHODS: Secondary analysis of an observational study in 349 intensive care units from 23 countries. A total of 234 patients were included who were ventilated only with APRV/BIPAP and 1,228 patients who were ventilated only with A/C. A case-matched analysis according to a propensity score was used to make comparisons between groups. RESULTS: In logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the use of APRV/BIPAP was the country (196 of 234 patients were from German units). Patients with coma or congestive heart failure as the reason to start mechanical ventilation, pH <7.15 prior to mechanical ventilation, and patients who developed respiratory failure (SOFA score >2) after intubation with or without criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome were less likely to be ventilated with APRV/BIPAP. In the case-matched analysis there were no differences in outcomes, including mortality in the intensive care unit, days of mechanical ventilation or weaning, rate of reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, and mortality in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the APRV/BIPAP ventilation mode is being used widely across many causes of respiratory failure, but only in selected geographic areas. In our patient population we could not demonstrate any improvement in outcomes with APRV/BIPAP compared with assist-control ventilation.
Assuntos
Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas/métodos , Ventilação com Pressão Positiva Intermitente/métodos , Estudos de Coortes , Pressão Positiva Contínua nas Vias Aéreas/mortalidade , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Ventilação com Pressão Positiva Intermitente/mortalidade , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the benefits of one mode over another for ventilatory support. We set out to compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation with pressure support (SIMV-PS) compared with assist-control (A/C) ventilation as their primary mode of ventilatory support. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an observational study conducted in 349 ICUs from 23 countries. A propensity score stratified analysis was used to compare 350 patients ventilated with SIMV-PS with 1,228 patients ventilated with A/C ventilation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: In a logistic regression model, patients were more likely to receive SIMV-PS if they were from North America, had lower severity of illness, or were ventilated postoperatively or for trauma. SIMV-PS was less likely to be selected if patients were ventilated because of asthma or coma, or if they developed complications such as sepsis or cardiovascular failure during mechanical ventilation. In the stratified analysis according to propensity score, we did not find significant differences in the in-hospital mortality. After adjustment for propensity score, overall effect of SIMV-PS on in-hospital mortality was not significant (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.77-1.42; P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort of ventilated patients, ventilation with SIMV-PS compared with A/C did not offer any advantage in terms of clinical outcomes, despite treatment-allocation bias that would have favored SIMV-PS.