Use of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure, 2000-2009: a population-based study.

Pubmed ID: 23509327

Pubmed Central ID: PMC3780971

Journal: Annals of the American Thoracic Society

Publication Date: Feb. 1, 2013

Affiliation: Boston University School of Medicine, The Pulmonary Center, R-304, 715 Albany Street, Boston, MA 02118, USA. alwalkey@bu.edu

MeSH Terms: Humans, Male, Female, Aged, United States, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, Hospital Mortality, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Respiration, Artificial, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Respiratory Insufficiency, Noninvasive Ventilation, Utilization Review, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Outcome Assessment, Health Care

Grants: K07 CA138772, R21HL112672, R21 HL112672

Authors: Walkey AJ, Wiener RS

Cite As: Walkey AJ, Wiener RS. Use of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure, 2000-2009: a population-based study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013 Feb;10(1):10-7.

Studies:

Abstract

RATIONALE: Although evidence supporting use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is strong, evidence varies widely for other causes of acute respiratory failure. OBJECTIVES: To compare utilization trends and outcomes associated with NIV in patients with and without COPD. METHODS: We identified 11,659,668 cases of acute respiratory failure from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample during years 2000 to 2009 and compared NIV utilization trends and failure rates for cases with or without a diagnosis of COPD. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The proportion of patients with COPD who received NIV increased from 3.5% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2009 (250% increase), and the proportion of patients without COPD who received NIV increased from 1.2% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2009 (400% increase). The rate of increase in the use of NIV was significantly greater for patients without COPD (18.1% annual change) than for patients with COPD (14.3% annual change; P = 0.02). Patients without COPD were more likely to have failure of NIV requiring endotracheal intubation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.22; P < 0.0001). Patients in whom NIV failed had higher hospital mortality than patients receiving mechanical ventilation without a preceding trial of NIV (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.17; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of NIV during acute respiratory failure has increased at a similar rate for all diagnoses, regardless of supporting evidence. However, NIV is more likely to fail in patients without COPD, and NIV failure is associated with increased mortality.