4.6 Article

Predictive factors of non invasive ventilation failure in critically ill children: a prospective epidemiological study

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 527-536

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1346-7

Keywords

Non-invasive ventilation; Pediatrics; Respiratory monitoring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Identification of predictive factors for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) failure and determination of NIV characteristics. Prospective observational study. Paediatric Intensive Care Unit in a University Hospital. A total of 116 episodes were included. Clinical data collected were respiratory rate (RR), heart rate and FiO(2) before NIV began. Same data and expiratory and support pressures were collected at 1, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h. Conditions precipitating acute respiratory failure (ARF) were classified into two groups: type 1 (38 episodes) and type 2 (78 episodes). Ventilation-perfusion impairment was the main respiratory failure mechanism in type 1, and hypoventilation in type 2. Factors predicting NIV failure were determined by multivariate analysis. Most common admission diagnoses were pneumonia (81.6%) in type 1 and bronchiolitis (39.7%) and asthma (42.3%) in type 2. Complications secondary to NIV were detected in 23 episodes (20.2%). NIV success rate was 84.5% (68.4% in type 1 and 92.3% in type 2). Type 1 patients showed a higher risk of NIV failure compared to type 2 (OR 11.108; CI 95%, 2.578-47.863). A higher PRISM score (OR 1.138; CI 95%, 1.022-1.267), and a lower RR decrease at 1 h and at 6 h (OR 0.926; CI 95%, 0.860-0.997 and OR 0.911; CI 95%, 0.837-0.991, respectively) were also independently associated with NIV failure. NIV is a useful respiratory support technique in paediatric patients. Type 1 group classification, higher PRISM score, and lower RR decrease during NIV were independent risk factors for NIV failure.

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