Noninvasive vs invasive respiratory support for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 16 02 2024
accepted: 12 07 2024
medline: 6 9 2024
pubmed: 6 9 2024
entrez: 6 9 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation. This is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow. During the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92-2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43-7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25-3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92-2.74). These data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation.
METHODS METHODS
This is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow.
RESULTS RESULTS
During the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92-2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43-7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25-3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92-2.74).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
These data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39240793
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307849
pii: PONE-D-24-02817
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study Comparative Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0307849

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Mosier et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Dr. Mosier’s competing interest statement has been amended to the following: JMM has received meeting travel support from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Auteurs

Jarrod M Mosier (JM)

Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep, Department of Medicine, The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Vignesh Subbian (V)

Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Sarah Pungitore (S)

Program in Applied Mathematics, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Devashri Prabhudesai (D)

BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Statistics Consulting Laboratory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Patrick Essay (P)

Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Edward J Bedrick (EJ)

BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Statistics Consulting Laboratory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Jacqueline C Stocking (JC)

Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep, Department of Medicine, UC Davis, Sacramento, California, United States of America.

Julia M Fisher (JM)

Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Statistics Consulting Laboratory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH