4.7 Article

Application of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to respiratory complications of severe tetanus: a case report

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 160-162

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.04.003

关键词

tetanus; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation; midazolam; spasm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory failure due to muscle spasms is a common consequence of tetanus. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) can effectively manage respiratory failure in tetanus patients who decline intubation, reducing the risk of complications and shortening the duration of ventilatory support.
Respiratory failure because of muscle spasms is a major sequela of tetanus. Spasms can be controlled with sedation and adjunctive treatment, albeit at the expense of respiratory drive and weakness. Invasive ventilation under deep sedation with intensive care unit admission is the best practice. Where invasive ventilation is unavailable and when patients decline intubation, the management of muscle spasms and respiratory failure is extremely limited, with low survival rates. Herein, we present a case of severe tetanus in a 90-year-old female farmer who declined intubation and whose respiratory failure was managed with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) with a moderate dose of continuous benzodiazepine infusion to treat spasms. Compared with invasive ventilation, NPPV reduces the duration of ventilatory support and the risk of nosocomial pneumonia. Because spontaneous respiratory drive of the patient was maintained to trigger ventilation, pressure control ventilation was initiated. In previous references to tetanus management, the application of NPPV has not been mentioned. NPPV is a treatment option for patients with tetanus who are not intubated owing to limited medical resources or do-notintubate orders for older patients. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

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

4.7
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