4.5 Article

Noninvasive ventilation during acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with cancer: Trends in use and outcome

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 295-299

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.11.042

关键词

Noninvasive ventilation; Mechanical ventilation; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The objectives of our study were to describe the outcome of patients with malignancies treated for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and to evaluate factors associated with NIV failure. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter database within 20 years was performed. All patients with malignancies and Berlin ARDS definition were included. Noninvasive ventilation use was defined as NIV lasting more than 1 hour, whereas failure was defined as a subsequent requirement of invasive ventilation. Conditional backward logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 1004 met the Berlin definition of ARDS. Noninvasive ventilation was used in 387 patients (38.6%) and NIV failure occurred in 71%, with an in-hospital mortality of 62.7%. Severity of ARDS defined by the partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (odds ratio [OR], 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-4.19), pulmonary infection (OR, 1.81; 95% Cl, 1.08-3.03), and modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR, 1.13; 95% Cl, 1.06-1.21) were associated with NIV failure. Factors associated with hospital mortality were NIV failure (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.56-4.07), severe ARDS as compared with mild ARDS (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.05-1.19), and modified SOFA score (OR, 1.12; 95% Cl, 1.05-1.19). Conclusion: Noninvasive ventilation failure in ARDS patients with malignancies is frequent and related to ARDS severity, SOFA score, and pulmonary infection-related ARDS. Noninvasive ventilation failure is associated with in-hospital mortality. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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