Respiratory controversies in the critical care setting. Should noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation be used in all forms of acute respiratory failure?

Abstract

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been a major advance in the management of acute respiratory failure. Over the past decade alone, NPPV has been the subject of over 1,500 scientific papers, including 14 meta-analyses. NPPV's utility in many clinical settings has been well established, with demonstration in randomized trials of lower intubation rate, mortality, hospital stay, and advantages in other important clinical outcomes. However, it is still used in a minority of patients with acute respiratory failure. While there probably are situations in which NPPV is commonly under-utilized, there are other situations in which it is unlikely to be of benefit or likely to inflict harm. This paper debates the data for and against the more widespread application of NPPV. It will assist the clinician to identify both good and poor candidates for NPPV and thereby devote respiratory care resources where they will be most effective, and optimize patient outcomes.

• Authors: Dean R Hess, Henry E Fessler
• Journal: Respiratory care (Respir Care) Vol. 52 Issue 5 Pg. 568-78; discussion 578-81 (May 2007) ISSN: 0020-1324 [Print] United States
• PMID: 17484789 (Publication Type: Journal Article)

Topics

• Acute Disease
• Asthma (therapy)
• Contraindications
• Humans
• Hypoxia (complications, therapy)
• Immunocompromised Host
• Lung Transplantation (adverse effects)
• Pneumonectomy (adverse effects)
• Positive-Pressure Respiration
• Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive (economics, mortality, therapy)
• Pulmonary Edema (mortality, therapy)
• Respiratory Insufficiency (etiology, therapy)
• Resuscitation Orders
• Ventilator Weaning