4.6 Article

Resource use, characteristics and outcomes of prolonged non-invasive ventilation: a single-centre observational study in China

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019271

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To report the resource use, characteristics and outcomes of patients with prolonged non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Design A single-centre observational study. Setting An intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. Participants Patients who only received NIV because of acute respiratory failure were enrolled. Prolonged NIV was defined as subjects who received NIV >= 14 days. A total of 1539 subjects were enrolled in this study; 69 (4.5%) underwent prolonged NIV. Main outcome measures Predictors of prolonged NIV and hospital mortality. Results The rate of do-not-intubate (DNI) orders was 9.1% (140/1539). At the beginning of NIV, a DNI order (OR 3.95, 95% CI 2.25 to 6.95) and pH >= 7.35 (2.20, 1.27 to 3.82) were independently associated with prolonged NIV. At days 1 and 7 of NIV, heart rate (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03) and 1.02 (1.00 to 1.03], respectively) and PaO2/FiO(2) <150 (2.19 (1.25 to 3.85) and 2.05 (1.04 to 4.04], respectively) were other independent risk factors for prolonged NIV. When patients who died after starting NIV but prior to 14 days were excluded, the association was strengthened. Regarding resource use, 77.1% of subjects received NIV<7 days and only accounted for 47.0% of NIV-days. However, 18.4% of subjects received NIV 7-13.9 days and accounted for 33.4% of NIV-days, 2.9% of subjects received NIV 14-20.9 days and accounted for 9.5% of NIV-days, and 1.6% of subjects received NIV >= 21 days and accounted for 10.1% of NIV-days. Conclusions Our results indicate the resource use, characteristics and outcomes of a prolonged NIV population with a relatively high proportion of DNI orders. Subjects with prolonged NIV make up a high proportion of NIV-days and are at high risk for in-hospital mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据