4.6 Article

Randomised placebo controlled trial of non-invasive ventilation for hypercapnia in cystic fibrosis

Journal

THORAX
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages 72-77

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2007.082602

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The clinical benefits of domiciliary noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) have not been established in cystic fibrosis (CF). We studied the effects of nocturnal NIV on quality of life (QoL), functional and physiological outcomes in CF subjects with awake hypercapnia (arterial carbon dioxide pressure PaCO2>45 mm Hg). Methods: In a randomised, placebo controlled, crossover study, eight subjects with CF, mean (SD) age 37 (8) years, body mass index 21.1 (2.6) kg/m(2), forced expiratory volume in 1 s 35 (8)% predicted and PaCO2 52 (4) mm Hg received 6 weeks of nocturnal (1) air (placebo), (2) oxygen and (3) NIV. The primary outcome measures were CF specific QoL, daytime sleepiness and exertional dyspnoea. Secondary outcome measures were awake and asleep gas exchange, sleep architecture, lung function and peak exercise capacity. Results: Compared with air, NIV improved the chest symptom score in the CF QoL Questionnaire (mean difference 10; 95% CI 5 to 16; p = 0.002) and the transitional dyspnoea index score (mean difference 3.1; 95% CI 1.2-5.0; p = 0.01). It reduced maximum nocturnal pressure of transcutaneous CO2 (PtcCO(2) mean difference 217 mm Hg; 95% CI 27 to 228 mm Hg; p = 0.005) and increased exercise performance on the Modified Shuttle Test (mean difference 83 m; 95% CI 21 to 144 m; p = 0.02). NIV did not improve sleep architecture, lung function or awake PaCO2. Conclusion: 6 weeks of nocturnal NIV improves chest symptoms, exertional dyspnoea, nocturnal hypoventilation and peak exercise capacity in adult patients with stable CF with awake hypercapnia. Further studies are required to determine whether or not NIV can improve survival.

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