Non-invasive ventilation with intelligent volume-assured pressure support versus pressure-controlled ventilation: effects on the respiratory event rate and sleep quality in COPD with chronic hypercapnia
Authors Nilius G, Katamadze N, Domanski U, Schroeder M, Franke KJ
Received 7 November 2016
Accepted for publication 6 February 2017
Published 30 March 2017 Volume 2017:12 Pages 1039—1045
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Georg Nilius,1,2 Nato Katamadze,1,2 Ulrike Domanski,1 Maik Schroeder,1 Karl-Josef Franke1,2
1HELIOS Klinik Hagen-Ambrock, 2Internal Medicine I, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany
Background: COPD patients who develop chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure have a poor prognosis. Treatment of choice, especially the best form of ventilation, is not well known.
Objectives: This study compared the effects of pressure-controlled (spontaneous timed [ST]) non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and NIV with intelligent volume-assured pressure support (IVAPS) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients regarding the effects on alveolar ventilation, adverse patient/ventilator interactions and sleep quality.
Methods: This prospective, single-center, crossover study randomized patients to one night of NIV using ST then one night with the IVAPS function activated, or vice versa. Patients were monitored using polysomnography (PSG) and transcutaneous carbon dioxide pressure (PtcCO2) measurement. Patients rated their subjective experience (total score, 0–45; lower scores indicate better acceptability).
Results: Fourteen patients were included (4 females, age 59.4±8.9 years). The total number of respiratory events was low, and similar under pressure-controlled (5.4±6.7) and IVAPS (8.3±10.2) conditions (P=0.064). There were also no clinically relevant differences in PtcCO2 between pressure-controlled and IVAPS NIV (52.9±6.2 versus 49.1±6.4 mmHg). Respiratory rate was lower under IVAPS overall; between-group differences reached statistical significance during wakefulness and non-rapid eye movement sleep. Ventilation pressures were 2.6 cmH2O higher under IVAPS versus pressure-controlled ventilation, resulting in a 20.1 mL increase in breathing volume. Sleep efficiency was slightly higher under pressure-controlled ventilation versus IVAPS. Respiratory arousals were uncommon (24.4/h [pressure-controlled] versus 25.4/h [IVAPS]). Overall patient assessment scores were similar, although there was a trend toward less discomfort during IVAPS.
Conclusion: Our results show that IVAPS NIV allows application of higher nocturnal ventilation pressures versus ST without affecting sleep quality or inducing ventilation-associated events.
Keywords: NIV, IVAPS, COPD, hypercapnia