Back to Journals » International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease » Volume 7

High pressure versus high intensity noninvasive ventilation in stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized crossover trial

Authors Murphy P, Brignall, Moxham, Polkey M, Davidson, Hart N

Received 20 July 2012

Accepted for publication 12 September 2012

Published 11 December 2012 Volume 2012:7 Pages 811—818


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 8

Patrick B Murphy,1,* Kate Brignall,1,* John Moxham,2 Michael I Polkey,3 A Craig Davidson,1,# Nicholas Hart1,4,#

Lane Fox Clinical Respiratory Physiology Group, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, 2Department of Thoracic Medicine, King’s College Hospital, 3Sleep and Ventilation Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, 4Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK

*These authors contributed equally to the work

#These senior authors contributed equally to the work

Background: High-intensity (high-pressure and high backup rate) noninvasive ventilation has recently been advocated for the management of stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the relative contributions of high inspiratory pressure and high backup rate to ventilator adherence and physiological outcome have not been investigated.
Methods: Patients with stable hypercapnic COPD (daytime PaCO2 > 6 kPa) and nocturnal hypoventilation were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to high-pressure and high backup rate (high-intensity) and high-pressure and low backup rate (high-pressure) for a 6-week period. At the end of the first treatment period, patients were switched to the alternative treatment. The primary outcome measure was mean nightly ventilator usage.
Results: Twelve patients were recruited, with seven completing the 12-week trial protocol. The mean patient age was 71 ± 8 years, with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) of 50% ± 13% and FEV1 of 32% ± 12%. The baseline PaCO2 and PaO2 were 8.6 ± 1.7 kPa and 7.3 ± 1.4 kPa, respectively. There was no significant difference demonstrated in mean nightly ventilator usage between the high-intensity and high-pressure groups (difference of 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval −45 to 53; P = 0.9). Furthermore, there were no differences in any of the secondary endpoints, with the exception of the respiratory domain of the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency questionnaire, which was lower in the high-intensity arm than in the high-pressure arm (57 ± 11 versus 69 ± 16; P < 0.05).
Conclusion: There was no additional benefit, in terms of night-time ventilator adherence or any of the other measured parameters, demonstrated by addition of a high backup rate to high-pressure noninvasive ventilation. These data suggest that it is the high-pressure component of the high-intensity noninvasive ventilation approach that plays the important therapeutic role in the management of hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients.

Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, noninvasive ventilation

A Letter to the Editor has been received and published for this article.

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]