Abstract

Whether the use of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is as effective as pressure support ventilation (PSV) remains unknown. In this exploratory study, we compared the delivery of NIV with PSV vs. ASV. We randomized consecutive subjects with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) to receive NIV either with the PSV or the ASV mode. The primary outcome was NIV failure (endotracheal intubation, re-institution of NIV within 48 h of discontinuation or mortality). The secondary outcomes were the duration of mechanical ventilation (invasive and noninvasive), the number of NIV manipulations, the visual analogue score (VAS) for physician’s ease of use and patient’s comfort, and the complications of NIV use. We enrolled 74 subjects (n = 38, PSV; n = 36, ASV; 78.4% males) with a mean (SD) age of 60.5 (9.5) years. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The overall NIV failure rate was 28.4% and was similar between the two groups (PSV vs. ASV: 34.2% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.31). There was a 9% reduction in the intubation rate with ASV. There were six deaths (PSV vs. ASV: 2 vs 4, p =0.311). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes. The application of NIV using ASV was associated with a similar success rate as PSV in subjects with AECOPD. Due to the small sample size, the results of our study should be confirmed in a larger trial.Trial registry: ww.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02877524).

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.