4.6 Article

Medical emergency team and non-invasive ventilation outside ICU for acute respiratory failure

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 339-343

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1350-y

Keywords

Non-invasive ventilation; Acute respiratory failure (ARF); Medical emergency team; Pneumonia; Cardiogenic pulmonary oedema; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To report data about real-life treatments with non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF), managed outside intensive care units by anaesthesiologists acting as a medical emergency team. Observational study; prospectively collected data over a 6-month period in a single centre. Non-intensive wards in a University Hospital with 1,100 beds. Consecutive patients with ARF for whom a ventilatory support was indicated but tracheal intubation was not appropriated or immediately needed. None. Patient's characteristics, safety data, short-term outcome and organizational aspects of 129 consecutive treatments were collected. The overall success rate was 77.5%, while 10.1% were intubated and 12.4% died (all of them were do not attempt resuscitation patients). The incidence of treatment failure varied greatly among different diseases. Complications were limited to nasal decubitus (5%), failure to accomplish the prescribed ventilatory program (12%), malfunction of the ventilator (2%) and excessive air leaks from face mask (2%) with no consequences for patients. Three patients became intolerant to NIV. The work-load for the MET was high but sustainable: on average NIV was applied to a new case every 34 h and more than three patients were simultaneously treated. Under the supervision of a MET, in our institution NIV could be applied in a wide variety of settings, outside the ICU, with a high success rate and with few complications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available