Guidelines for noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure

Mask interfaces and devices for home noninvasive ventilation in children

Home noninvasive ventilation (NIV), including continuous (CPAP) and bilevel (BPAP) positive airway pressure, is increasingly used in children worldwide. In this narrative review, we present a comprehensive summary of the equipment available for home NIV in pediatrics, excluding neonates. NIV may be challenging in young children, as the majority of the equipment has been developed for adults. Regarding the interfaces, only a few masks have been specifically developed for young children in recent years, while older children may benefit from a large variety of interfaces. Even though much progress has been made, skin injuries are still present, and need to be managed rapidly. Several studies addressed the management of the side effects, but recent studies are lacking regarding orofacial anomalies. No recent study reported the available interfaces for young children and the strategies for an optimal mask fit. Regarding the devices, an adapted NIV device to pediatrics that allows an adequate patient's breathing detection should guarantee optimal ventilatory efficiency and monitoring of NIV. A close follow-up and regular monitoring should be mandatory to rule out the potential issues, optimize NIV therapy and ascertain the efficacy of NIV. However, studies are lacking to guide the choice of devices in young children and the optimal management of home NIV in pediatrics. We summarized the characteristics of the different interfaces available for young children and the limitations of NIV devices. We finally addressed potential areas for future research on long-term home NIV in children.

Noninvasive Respiratory Assist Devices in the Management of COVID-19-related Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: Pune ISCCM COVID-19 ARDS Study Consortium (PICASo)

Objective

To determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or noninvasive ventilator (NIV) can avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ADRS), and the outcome predictors of these modalities.

Design

Multicenter retrospective study conducted in 12 ICUs in Pune, India.

Patients

Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio <150 and were treated with HFNO and/or NIV.

Intervention

HFNO and/or NIV.

Measurements

The primary outcome was to assess the need of IMV. Secondary outcomes were death at Day 28 and mortality rates in different treatment groups.

Main results

Among 1,201 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 35.9% (431/1,201) were treated successfully with HFNO and/or NIV and did not require IMV. About 59.5% (714/1,201) patients needed IMV for the failure of HFNO and/or NIV. About 48.3, 61.6, and 63.6% of patients who were treated with HFNO, NIV, or both, respectively, needed IMV. The need of IMV was significantly lower in the HFNO group (p <0.001). The 28-day mortality was 44.9, 59.9, and 59.6% in the patients treated with HFNO, NIV, or both, respectively (p <0.001). On multivariate regression analysis, presence of any comorbidity, SpO₂ <90%, and presence of nonrespiratory organ dysfunction were independent and significant determinants of mortality (p <0.05).

Conclusions

During COVID-19 pandemic surge, HFNO and/or NIV could successfully avoid IMV in 35.5% individuals with PO₂/FiO₂ ratio <150. Those who needed IMV due to failure of HFNO or NIV had high (87.5%) mortality.

How to cite this article

Jog S, Zirpe K, Dixit S, Godavarthy P, Shahane M, Kadapatti K, et al. Noninvasive Respiratory Assist Devices in the Management of COVID-19-related Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: Pune ISCCM COVID-19 ARDS Study Consortium (PICASo). Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):791-797.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome: Predictors of noninvasive ventilation failure and intensive care unit mortality in clinical practice

PURPOSE

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is used as an initial ventilatory support in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but its utility is unclear, and persistence in those who do not improve may delay intubation and lead to adverse outcomes. Hence, it becomes imperative to have a clear understanding of selecting patients who will benefit from this modality.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we included all consecutive adults, over a 3-year period, who fulfilled criteria for ARDS by the Berlin definition. Basic demographics, ventilatory support, intensive care unit course, and outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 170 patients, 96 (56.47%) were initially managed with NIV. Noninvasive ventilation failure was seen in 42 (43.75%) of 96, and low baseline PaO2/FIO2, shock, and ARDS severity were associated with NIV failure. Overall intensive care unit mortality was 63 (37.1%) of 170, and high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, low PaO2/FIO2, shock, and ARDS severity were associated with increased mortality. Noninvasive ventilation failure and mortality were significantly higher in moderate and severe ARDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive ventilation maybe useful in selected patients with mild ARDS but should be used with great caution in moderate and severe ARDS, as failure risk is high. In addition, low PaO2/FIO2 and shock are associated with NIV failure. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, shock, low PaO2/FIO2, and ARDS severity are associated with increased mortality.

Noninvasive ventilation: Are we overdoing it?

BACKGROUND

Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) outside guideline recommendations is common. We audited use of NIV in our tertiary care critical care unit (CCU) to evaluate appropriateness of use and patient outcomes when used outside level I recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective observational study of all patients requiring NIV. Clinical parameters and arterial blood gases were recorded at initiation of NIV and 2 h later (or earlier if clinically warranted). NIV titration and decision to intubate were left to the discretion of treating intensivist. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1: Those with level I indications for use of NIV and group 2: All other levels of indications. Patients were followed until hospital discharge.

RESULTS

From January 2010 to June 2010, 1120 patients were admitted to the CCU. Of these 106 patients required NIV support with 40.6% (n = 43/106) being in group 1 and 59.4% (n = 63/106) in group 2. Of these 35.8% patients (38/106) failed NIV and required endotracheal intubation. NIV failure rates (41.27% vs. 27.91%; P = 0.02) and mortality (30.6% vs. 18.6%; P = 0.03) were significantly higher in group 2 patients. In a logistic regression analysis Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (P = 0.02), time on NIV before intubation (P = 0.001) and baseline PaCO2 levels (P = 0.01) were strongly associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive ventilation failure and mortality rates were significantly higher when used outside level I recommendations. APACHE II score, baseline PaCO2 and duration on NIV prior to intubation were predictors of increased mortality.