Non-invasive ventilation for cystic fibrosis.

Non-invasive ventilation may be a means to temporarily reverse or slow the progression of respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis. To compare the effect of non-invasive ventilation versus no non-invasive ventilation in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We searched the reference lists of each trial for additional publications possibly containing other trials.Most recent search: 22 February 2013. Randomised controlled trials comparing a form of pressure preset or volume preset non-invasive ventilation to no non-invasive ventilation in people with acute or chronic respiratory failure in cystic fibrosis. Three reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and methodological quality, and extracted data. Fifteen trials were identified; seven trials met the inclusion criteria with a total of 106 participants. Six trials evaluated single treatment sessions and one evaluated a six-week intervention.Four trials (79 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation for airway clearance compared with an alternative chest physiotherapy method and showed that airway clearance may be easier with non-invasive ventilation and people with cystic fibrosis may prefer it. We were unable to find any evidence that NIV increases sputum expectoration, but it did improve some lung function parameters.Three trials (27 participants) evaluated non-invasive ventilation for overnight ventilatory support, measuring lung function, validated quality of life scores and nocturnal transcutaneous carbon dioxide. Due to the small numbers of participants and statistical issues, there were discrepancies in the results between the RevMan and the original trial analyses. No clear differences were found between non-invasive ventilation compared with oxygen or room air except for exercise performance, which significantly improved with non-invasive ventilation compared to room air over six weeks. Non-invasive ventilation may be a useful adjunct to other airway clearance techniques, particularly in people with cystic fibrosis who have difficulty expectorating sputum. Non-invasive ventilation, used in addition to oxygen, may improve gas exchange during sleep to a greater extent than oxygen therapy alone in moderate to severe disease. These benefits of non-invasive ventilation have largely been demonstrated in single treatment sessions with small numbers of participants. The impact of this therapy on pulmonary exacerbations and disease progression remain unclear. There is a need for long-term randomised controlled trials which are adequately powered to determine the clinical effects of non-invasive ventilation in cystic fibrosis airway clearance and exercise.

Non-invasive Ventilation of Patients with ARDS: Insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

Background: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Whether, during NIV, the categorization of ARDS severity based on the PaO2/FiO2 Berlin criteria is useful is unknown. The evidence supporting NIV use in patients with ARDS remains relatively sparse.

Methods: The Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study described the management of patients with ARDS. This sub-study examines the current practice of NIV use in ARDS, the utility of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in classifying patients receiving NIV and the impact of NIV on outcome.

Results: Of 2,813 patients with ARDS, 436 (15.5%) were managed with NIV on days 1 and 2 following fulfillment of diagnostic criteria. Classification of ARDS severity based on PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with an increase in intensity of ventilatory support, NIV failure, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality. NIV failure occurred in 22.2% of mild, 42.3% of moderate and 47.1% of patients with severe ARDS. Hospital mortality in patients with NIV success and failure was 16.1 % and 45.4%, respectively. NIV use was independently associated with increased ICU (HR 1.446; [1.159-1.805]), but not hospital mortality. In a propensity matched analysis, ICU mortality was higher in NIV than invasively ventilated patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mmHg.

Conclusions: NIV was used in 15% of patients with ARDS, irrespective of severity category. NIV appears to be associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 lower than 150 mmHg.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073