A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure

Massimo Antonelli, Giorgio Conti, Monica Rocco, Maurizio Bufi, Roberto Alberto De Blasi, Gabriella Vivino, Alessandro Gasparetto, Gianfranco Meduri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

749 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Methods: The role of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation delivered through a face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure is uncertain. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as compared with endotracheal intubation with conventional mechanical ventilation in 64 patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who required mechanical ventilation. Results: Within the first hour of ventilation, 20 of 32 patients (62 percent) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and 15 of 32 (47 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group had an improved ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) (P=0.21). Ten patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group subsequently required endotracheal intubation. Seventeen patients in the conventional-ventilation group (53 percent) and 23 in the noninvasive-ventilation group (72 percent) survived their stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.4; P=0.19); 16 patients in the conventional- ventilation group and 22 patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group were discharged from the hospital. More patients in the conventional-ventilation group had serious complications (66 percent vs. 38 percent, P=0.02) and had pneumonia or sinusitis related to the endotracheal tube (31 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.003). Among the survivors, patients in the noninvasive- ventilation group had shorter periods of ventilation (P=0.006) and shorter stays in the intensive care unit (P=0.002). Conclusions: In patients with acute respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation was as effective as conventional ventilation in improving gas exchange and was associated with fewer serious complications and shorter stays in the intensive care unit.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)429-435
Number of pages7
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume339
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 13 1998

Fingerprint

Positive-Pressure Respiration
Artificial Respiration
Respiratory Insufficiency
Noninvasive Ventilation
Ventilation
Intensive Care Units
Intratracheal Intubation
Oxygen
Partial Pressure
Sinusitis
Masks
Survivors
Pneumonia
Gases
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. / Antonelli, Massimo; Conti, Giorgio; Rocco, Monica; Bufi, Maurizio; De Blasi, Roberto Alberto; Vivino, Gabriella; Gasparetto, Alessandro; Meduri, Gianfranco.

In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 339, No. 7, 13.08.1998, p. 429-435.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Antonelli, Massimo ; Conti, Giorgio ; Rocco, Monica ; Bufi, Maurizio ; De Blasi, Roberto Alberto ; Vivino, Gabriella ; Gasparetto, Alessandro ; Meduri, Gianfranco. / A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. In: New England Journal of Medicine. 1998 ; Vol. 339, No. 7. pp. 429-435.
@article{02620d0c3fbb47f3bf8e4229dcec54ef,
title = "A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure",
abstract = "Background and Methods: The role of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation delivered through a face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure is uncertain. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as compared with endotracheal intubation with conventional mechanical ventilation in 64 patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who required mechanical ventilation. Results: Within the first hour of ventilation, 20 of 32 patients (62 percent) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and 15 of 32 (47 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group had an improved ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) (P=0.21). Ten patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group subsequently required endotracheal intubation. Seventeen patients in the conventional-ventilation group (53 percent) and 23 in the noninvasive-ventilation group (72 percent) survived their stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.4; P=0.19); 16 patients in the conventional- ventilation group and 22 patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group were discharged from the hospital. More patients in the conventional-ventilation group had serious complications (66 percent vs. 38 percent, P=0.02) and had pneumonia or sinusitis related to the endotracheal tube (31 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.003). Among the survivors, patients in the noninvasive- ventilation group had shorter periods of ventilation (P=0.006) and shorter stays in the intensive care unit (P=0.002). Conclusions: In patients with acute respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation was as effective as conventional ventilation in improving gas exchange and was associated with fewer serious complications and shorter stays in the intensive care unit.",
author = "Massimo Antonelli and Giorgio Conti and Monica Rocco and Maurizio Bufi and {De Blasi}, {Roberto Alberto} and Gabriella Vivino and Alessandro Gasparetto and Gianfranco Meduri",
year = "1998",
month = "8",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1056/NEJM199808133390703",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "339",
pages = "429--435",
journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure

AU - Antonelli, Massimo

AU - Conti, Giorgio

AU - Rocco, Monica

AU - Bufi, Maurizio

AU - De Blasi, Roberto Alberto

AU - Vivino, Gabriella

AU - Gasparetto, Alessandro

AU - Meduri, Gianfranco

PY - 1998/8/13

Y1 - 1998/8/13

N2 - Background and Methods: The role of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation delivered through a face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure is uncertain. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as compared with endotracheal intubation with conventional mechanical ventilation in 64 patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who required mechanical ventilation. Results: Within the first hour of ventilation, 20 of 32 patients (62 percent) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and 15 of 32 (47 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group had an improved ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) (P=0.21). Ten patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group subsequently required endotracheal intubation. Seventeen patients in the conventional-ventilation group (53 percent) and 23 in the noninvasive-ventilation group (72 percent) survived their stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.4; P=0.19); 16 patients in the conventional- ventilation group and 22 patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group were discharged from the hospital. More patients in the conventional-ventilation group had serious complications (66 percent vs. 38 percent, P=0.02) and had pneumonia or sinusitis related to the endotracheal tube (31 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.003). Among the survivors, patients in the noninvasive- ventilation group had shorter periods of ventilation (P=0.006) and shorter stays in the intensive care unit (P=0.002). Conclusions: In patients with acute respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation was as effective as conventional ventilation in improving gas exchange and was associated with fewer serious complications and shorter stays in the intensive care unit.

AB - Background and Methods: The role of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation delivered through a face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure is uncertain. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as compared with endotracheal intubation with conventional mechanical ventilation in 64 patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who required mechanical ventilation. Results: Within the first hour of ventilation, 20 of 32 patients (62 percent) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and 15 of 32 (47 percent) in the conventional-ventilation group had an improved ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) (P=0.21). Ten patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group subsequently required endotracheal intubation. Seventeen patients in the conventional-ventilation group (53 percent) and 23 in the noninvasive-ventilation group (72 percent) survived their stay in the intensive care unit (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.4; P=0.19); 16 patients in the conventional- ventilation group and 22 patients in the noninvasive-ventilation group were discharged from the hospital. More patients in the conventional-ventilation group had serious complications (66 percent vs. 38 percent, P=0.02) and had pneumonia or sinusitis related to the endotracheal tube (31 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.003). Among the survivors, patients in the noninvasive- ventilation group had shorter periods of ventilation (P=0.006) and shorter stays in the intensive care unit (P=0.002). Conclusions: In patients with acute respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation was as effective as conventional ventilation in improving gas exchange and was associated with fewer serious complications and shorter stays in the intensive care unit.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032514508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032514508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM199808133390703

DO - 10.1056/NEJM199808133390703

M3 - Article

C2 - 9700176

AN - SCOPUS:0032514508

VL - 339

SP - 429

EP - 435

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 7

ER -