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

Belenguer-Muncharaz, Alberto; Mateu‐Campos, Lidón; González-Luís, Rubèc)n; Vidal-Tegedor, Bárbara; Ferrándiz-Sellèc)s, Amparo; Arguedas-Cervera, J.; Altaba-Tena, Susana; Casero-Roig, Patricia; Moreno-Clarí, Ester

doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2017.02.019

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of studies using the treatment in ACPO was also lower than might be at first expected because many of the studies claiming to be treating a pulmonary edema population and included in prior systematic reviews,[ 20 21 ] in fact included high numbers of patients with coexistent COPD. [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients

Faqihi

Trethewey

Morlet

et al. 2021

Annals of Thoracic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to etiologies other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. To systematically review the evidence regarding the effectiveness of BiPAP in non-COPD patients with AHRF. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus were searched according to prespecified criteria (PROSPERO-CRD42018089875). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of BiPAP versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), invasive mechanical ventilation, or O 2 therapy in adults with non-COPD AHRF were included. The primary outcomes of interest were the rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and mortality. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed, and data were synthesized and meta-analyzed where appropriate. Two thousand four hundred and eighty-five records were identified after removing duplicates. Eighty-eight articles were identified for full-text assessment, of which 82 articles were excluded. Six studies, of generally low or uncertain risk-of-bias, were included involving 320 participants with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPO) and solid tumors. No significant differences were seen between BiPAP ventilation and CPAP with regard to the rate of progression to ETI (risk ratio [RR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–3.62, P = 0.37) and in-hospital mortality rate (RR = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.25–1.99, P = 0.51) in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. The efficacy of BiPAP appears similar to CPAP in reducing the rates of ETI and mortality in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. Further research on other non-COPD conditions which commonly cause AHRF such as obesity hypoventilation syndrome is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients

Faqihi

Trethewey

Morlet

et al. 2021

Annals of Thoracic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 43 Bello and colleagues review of the literature showed that the uses of NIV can decrease the systemic venous return and left ventricular afterload, which would reduce LV filling pressure and limiting pulmonary edema, and that CPAP showed improvement in vital signs of patients and decreased need for endotracheal intubation and hospital mortality than conventional oxygen therapy. 2 , 44 The BTS guidelines recommend CPAP as it has been shown effective in patient with cardiogenic pulmonary edema and that NIV should be reserved for those for whom CPAP is not successful. 3 The ERS/ATS guidelines recommend either bilevel NIV or CPAP for patients with acute respiratory failure due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema.…”

Section: Common Clinical Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noninvasive Ventilation and Oxygenation Strategies

Popowicz

Leonard

2022

Surgical Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Berbenetz

Wang

Brown

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Abstract: 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.

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients

Noninvasive Ventilation and Oxygenation Strategies

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About