ObjectiveTo investigate the application value of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) performed in patients with unplanned extubation (UE) in intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis. The clinical data, application of NIV, reintubation rate and prognosis of UE patients in the ICU of this hospital from January 2014 to December 2018 were reviewed, and the patients were assigned to the control group or the NIV group according to the application of NIV after UE. The data between the two groups were compared and the application effects of NIV in UE patients were evaluated.ResultsA total of 66 UE patients were enrolled in this study, including 44 males and 22 females and with an average age of (64.2±16.1) years. Out of them, 41 patients (62.1%) used nasal catheter or mask for oxygenation as the control group, 25 patients (37.9%) used NIV as the NIV group. The Acute Physiology andChronic Health EvaluationⅡ score of the control group and the NIV group were (18.6±7.7) vs. (14.8±6.3), P=0.043. The causes of respiratory failure in the control group and the NIV group were as follows: pneumonia 16 patients (39.0%) vs. 7 patients (28.0%), postoperative respiratory failure 7 patients (17.1%) vs. 8 patients (32.0%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 8 patients (19.5%) vs. 6 patients (24.0%), others 5 patients (12.2%) vs. 4 patients (16.0%), heart failure 3 patients (7.3%) vs. 0 patients (0%), nervous system diseases 2 (4.9%) vs. 0 patients (0%), which showed no significant difference between the two groups. Mechanical ventilation time before UE were (12.5±19.8) vs (12.7±15.2) d (P=0.966), PaO2 of the control group and the NIV group before UE was (114.9±37.4) vs. (114.4±46.3)mm Hg (P=0.964), and oxygenation index was (267.1±82.0) vs. (257.4±80.0)mm Hg (P=0.614). Reintubation rate was 65.9% in the control group and 24.0% in the NIV group (P=0.001). The duration of mechanical ventilation was (23.9±26.0) vs. (21.8±26.0)d (P=0.754), the length of stay in ICU was (34.4±36.6) vs. (28.5±25.8)d (P=0.48). The total mortality rate in this study was 19.7%. The mortality rate in the control group and NIV group were 22.0% and 16.0% (P=0.555).ConclusionPatients with UE in ICU may consider using NIV to avoid reintubation.
ObjectiveTo investigate whether noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) will improve preoxygenation in critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICU) before intubation, when compared with bag-valve-mask (BVM).MethodsThis was a single-centered, prospective and randomized study. The patients in the study were those who required tracheal intubation in the ICU of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University and Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health from June 2015 to June 2017. These critically ill patients were provided with BVM or NIV assisted preoxygenation randomly. The data of the NIV group and the control group were compared and the application values of NIV in preoxygenation of critically ill patients were evaluated.ResultsA total of 106 patients participated in this study, including 75 males and 31 females and with an average age of (65.0±12.6) years. The patients were classified either into the control group (BVM assisted preoxygenation, n=53), or the NIV group (NIV assisted pre-oxygenation, n=53). The causes of intubation in the control group and the NIV group were as follows: pneumonia [40 patients (75.5%) vs. 39 patients (73.6%)], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [12 patients (22.6%) vs. 11 patients (20.8%)], and other disease [1 patient (1.9%) vs. 3 patients (5.7%)], which showed no significant difference between the two groups. The scores of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation System Ⅱ of the control group and the NIV group were 20 (17, 26) vs. 20 (16, 26), P=0.86, which also showed no significant difference. The oxygen saturation of the pulse (SpO2) before preoxygenation were similar in both the control group and the NIV group 92% (85%, 98%) vs. 91% (85%, 98%), P=0.87. After preoxygenation, SpO2 was significantly higher in the NIV group than in the control group 99% (96%, 100%) vs. 96% (90%, 99%), P=0.001. For the subgroup of patients with SpO2 less than 90% before preoxygenation, the respective SpO2 in the control group and the NIV group were 83% (73%, 85%) vs. 81% (75%, 86%), P=0.75; after preoxygenation, SpO2 in the NIV group was significantly higher than in the control group 99% (96%, 100%) vs. 94%(90%, 99%), P=0.000. For the subgroup of patients with SpO2 of 90% or more before preoxygenation, the respective SpO2 in the control group and the NIV group were similar 95.5% (92%, 99%) vs. 96% (94%, 99%), P=0.52; and continued to be similar after preoxygenation 98% (95%, 100%) vs. 99% (96%, 100%), P=0.1. The duration of mechanical ventilation of the control group and the NIV group was 17 (10, 23)d vs. 19 (11, 26)d (P=0.86). The 28 days survival rate of the control group and the NIV group was 73.6% vs. 71.7% (P=0.34). The mortality rate in the control group and NIV group were 31.3% and 31.7% (P=0.66).ConclusionsWhen compared with the use of BVM, NIV assisted preoxygenation is effective and safe for critically ill patients. Critically ill patients with severe hypoxemia will benefit more from NIV assisted preoxygenation.