• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Emergency medicine journal: EMJ >Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure: a randomised comparison of continuous positive airway pressure and bi-level positive airway pressure.
【24h】

Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure: a randomised comparison of continuous positive airway pressure and bi-level positive airway pressure.

机译：急性呼吸衰竭的无创通气：连续气道正压和双水平气道正压的随机比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is a difference in required duration of non-invasive ventilation between continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the treatment of a heterogeneous group of emergency department (ED) patients suffering acute respiratory failure and the subgroup of patients with acute pulmonary oedema (APO). Secondary objectives were to compare complications, failure rate, disposition, length of stay parameters, and mortality between the treatments. METHODS: This prospective randomised trial was conducted in the emergency departments of three Australian teaching hospitals. Patients in acute respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive CPAP or BiPAP in addition to standard therapy. Duration of non-invasive ventilation, complications, failure rate, disposition, length of stay (hospital and ICU), and mortality were measured. RESULTS: 101 patients were enrolled in the study (CPAP 51, BiPAP 50). The median duration of non-invasive ventilation with CPAP was 123 minutes (range 10-338) and 132 minutes (range 20-550) for BiPAP (p = 0.206, Mann-Whitney). For the subgroup suffering APO, 36 were randomised to CPAP and 35 to BiPAP. For this group the median duration of non-invasive ventilation for CPAP was 123 minutes (range 35-338) and 133 minutes (range 30-550) for BiPAP (p = 0.320, Mann-Whitney). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there is no significant difference in the duration of non-invasive ventilation treatment between CPAP and BiPAP when used for the treatment of acute respiratory failure in the ED. There was also no significant difference between the groups in secondary end points.
机译：目的：确定在治疗异质性急诊科（ED）患者时，连续气道正压通气（CPAP）和双水平气道正压通气（BiPAP）之间的无创通气持续时间是否存在差异急性呼吸衰竭和急性肺水肿（APO）患者亚组。次要目标是比较治疗之间的并发症，失败率，处置，住院时间长短和死亡率。方法：这项前瞻性随机试验在澳大利亚三所教学医院的急诊科进行。急性呼吸衰竭的患者除标准治疗外，还随机分配接受CPAP或BiPAP。测量了无创通气的持续时间，并发症，失败率，处置，住院时间（医院和ICU）以及死亡率。结果：101名患者被纳入研究（CPAP 51，BiPAP 50）。对于CPAP，BiPAP的无创通气中位时间为123分钟（范围10-338）和132分钟（范围20-550）（p = 0.206，Mann-Whitney）。对于患有APO的亚组，将36个患者随机分为CPAP，将35个患者随机分为BiPAP。对于该组，CPAP的无创通气时间中位数为123分钟（范围35-338），而BiPAP的中位时间为133分钟（范围30-550）（p = 0.320，Mann-Whitney）。结论：这些结果表明，当用于急诊急诊呼吸衰竭时，CPAP和BiPAP之间的无创通气治疗时间没有显着差异。各组在次要终点上也没有显着差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号