4.6 Article

Trends in mechanical ventilation use and mortality over time in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in Spain from 2001 to 2015

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 74, Issue -, Pages 67-72

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2019.11.023

Keywords

Mechanical ventilation; Invasive; Noninvasive; Hospitalization; Mortality; Time trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We examined trends in the incidence of ventilator support with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) among patients hospitalized in Spain from 2001 to 2015. We also assessed in-hospital mortality (IHM) after receiving these types of ventilator support. Methods: This study was an observational retrospective epidemiological study. Our data source was the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database. Results: In total, 1,031,497 patients received ventilator support in Spain over the study period. NIV use increased from 18.8 patients per 100.000 inhabitants in 2001 to 108.7 in 2015. IMV utilization increased significantly from 2001 to 2003 and then decreased from 2003 until 2015. Patients who required NIV had the highest mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score. Patients who received IMV had the highest in-hospital mortality. Factors associated with an increased risk for IHM were sex, age, conditions included in the CCI (except for COPD and diabetes), haemodialysis, presence of a peripheral arterial catheter, presence of a central venous catheter, readmission and emergency room admission. Undergoing a surgical procedure was a risk factor only for IMV. IHM decreased significantly from 2001 to 2015 in patients who underwent NIV or IMV. Conclusions: We identified an increase in the utilization of NIV over time, whereas use of IMV decreased from 2003 until 2015 after an initial increase from 2001 to 2003. We also found a significant decrease in IHM over time.

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