Interfaces and ventilator settings for long-term noninvasive ventilation in COPD patients
Received 8 March 2017
Accepted for publication 15 May 2017
Published 28 June 2017 Volume 2017:12 Pages 1883—1889
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Jens Callegari,1 Friederike Sophie Magnet,1 Steven Taubner,1 Melanie Berger,2 Sarah Bettina Schwarz,1 Wolfram Windisch,1 Jan Hendrik Storre3,4
1Department of Pneumology, Cologne-Merheim Hospital, Kliniken der Stadt Koeln, Witten/Herdecke University Hospital, 2Department of Pneumology, Malteser Hospital St Hildegardis, Cologne, 3Department of Pneumology, University Medical Hospital, Freiburg, 4Department of Intensive Care, Sleep Medicine and Mechanical Ventilation, Asklepios Fachkliniken Munich-Gauting, Gauting, Germany
Introduction: The establishment of high-intensity (HI) noninvasive ventilation (NIV) that targets elevated PaCO2 has led to an increase in the use of long-term NIV to treat patients with chronic hypercapnic COPD. However, the role of the ventilation interface, especially in more aggressive ventilation strategies, has not been systematically assessed.
Methods: Ventilator settings and NIV compliance were assessed in this prospective cross-sectional monocentric cohort study of COPD patients with pre-existing NIV. Daytime arterialized blood gas analyses and lung function testing were also performed. The primary end point was the distribution among study patients of interfaces (full-face masks [FFMs] vs nasal masks [NMs]) in a real-life setting.
Results: The majority of the 123 patients studied used an FFM (77%), while 23% used an NM. Ventilation settings were as follows: mean ± standard deviation (SD) inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) was 23.2±4.6 mbar and mean ± SD breathing rate was 16.7±2.4/minute. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) mode was used in 52.8% of patients, while assisted pressure-controlled ventilation (aPCV) was used in 47.2% of patients. Higher IPAP levels were associated with an increased use of FFMs (IPAP <21 mbar: 73% vs IPAP >25 mbar: 84%). Mean compliance was 6.5 hours/day, with no differences between FFM (6.4 hours/day) and NM (6.7 hours/day) users. PaCO2 assessment of ventilation quality revealed comparable results among patients with FFMs or NMs.
Conclusion: This real-life trial identified the FFM as the predominantly used interface in COPD patients undergoing long-term NIV. The increased application of FFMs is, therefore, likely to be influenced by higher IPAP levels, which form part of the basis for successful application of HI-NIV in clinical practice.
Keywords: compliance, home mechanical ventilation, interfaces, masks, pressure support, ventilation modes
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php 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]