2019
DOI: 10.1111/imj.14208
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non‐invasive ventilation of patients with acute asthma

Abstract: A retrospective observational study of 21 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Frankston Hospital with acute asthma between 2011 and 2014 was undertaken. We report the outcomes for three groups of patients; those that did (n = 7) or did not (n = 6) receive initial therapy with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) together with those that received invasive ventilation (n = 8). Patients successfully managed with NIV alone experienced a shorter ICU and hospital stay versus those who required invasive v… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 12 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The potential benefits of NPPV for children with acute asthma may be multifactorial. As mentioned previously, using NPPV earlier in high-risk children with acute severe asthma could reduce their work of breathing, and more time could be given for the pharmacological treatment to reach maximum effect (34). This could be reflected by the acutely improved BGA parameters, reduced RR, and favorably changed symptomatic scores following NPPV in children with acute asthma in this meta-analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…The potential benefits of NPPV for children with acute asthma may be multifactorial. As mentioned previously, using NPPV earlier in high-risk children with acute severe asthma could reduce their work of breathing, and more time could be given for the pharmacological treatment to reach maximum effect (34). This could be reflected by the acutely improved BGA parameters, reduced RR, and favorably changed symptomatic scores following NPPV in children with acute asthma in this meta-analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%