4.6 Article

Autotitrating versus standard noninvasive ventilation: a randomised crossover trial

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 566-573

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00065008

Keywords

Automatic titration; chest wall disorders; neuromuscular disease; nocturnal hypoventilation; noninvasive ventilation

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust (London, UK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of automatic titration of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with conventional NIV in stable neuromuscular and chest wall disorder patients established on long-term ventilatory support. In total, 20 neuromuscular and chest wall disease patients with nocturnal hypoventilation treated with long-term NIV completed a randomised crossover trial comparing two noninvasive pressure support ventilators: a standard billevel ventilator (VPAP III) and a novel autotitrating bilevel ventilator (AutoVPAP). Baseline physiological measurements, overnight polysomnography and Holter monitoring were repeated at the end of each 1-month treatment period. Nocturnal oxygenation was comparable between the autotitrating device and standard ventilator, as were sleep efficiency, arousals and heart rate variability. However, there was a small significant increase in mean overnight transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (median (interquartile range) 7.2 (6.7-7.7) versus 6.7 (6.1-7.0) kPa) and a decrease in percentage stage 1 sleep (mean +/- SD 16 +/- 9 versus 19 +/- 10%) on autotitrating NIV compared with conventional NIV. Autotitrating noninvasive ventilation using AutoVPAP produced comparable control of nocturnal oxygenation to standard nonivasive ventilation, without compromising sleep quality in stable neuromuscular and chest wall disease patients requiring long-term ventilatory support for nocturnal hypoventilation.

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