Clinical application of noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure in a general ICU

Citations Over Time

Abstract

Introduction There is considerable uncertainty about the reproducibility of the various instruments used to measure dyspnea, their ability to reflect changes in symptoms, whether they accurately reflect the patient's experience and if its evolution is similar between acute heart failure syndrome patients and nonacute heart failure syndrome patients. URGENT was a prospective multicenter trial designed to address these issues. Methods Patients were interviewed within 1 hour of first physician evaluation, in the emergency department or acute care setting, with dyspnea assessed by the patient using both a five-point Likert scale and a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) in the sitting (60) and then supine (20) position if dyspnea had not been considered severe or very severe by the sitting versus decubitus dyspnea measurement. Results Very good agreements were found between the five-point Likert and VAS at baseline (0.891, P <0.0001) and between changes (from baseline to hour 6) in the five-point Likert and in VAS (0.800, P <0.0001) in acute heart failure (AHF) patients. Lower agreements were found when changes from baseline to H6 measured by Likert or VAS were compared with the seven-point comparative Likert (0.512 and 0.500 respectively) in AHF patients. The worse the dyspnea at admission, the greater the amplitude of improvement in the first 6 hours; this relationship is stronger when dyspnea is measured with VAS (Spearman's rho coefficient = 0.672) than with the five-point Likert (0.272) (both P <0.0001) in AHF patients. By the five-point Likert, only nine patients (3% (1% to 5%)) reported an improvement in their dyspnea, 177 (51% (46% to 57%)) had no change, and 159 (46% (41% to 52%)) reported worse dyspnea supine compared with sitting up in AHF patients. The PDA test with VAS was markedly different between AHF and non-AHF patients. Conclusions Both clinical tools five-point Likert and VAS showed very good agreement at baseline and between changes from baseline to tests performed 6 hours later in AHF patients. The PDA test with VAS was markedly different between AHF and non-AHF patients. Dyspnea is improved within 6 hours in more than threequarters of the patients regardless of the tool used to measure the change in dyspnea. The greater the dyspnea at admission, the greater the amplitude of improvement in the first 6 hours.

Related Papers

• The Clinical Analysis of Mechanical Ventilation on 28 Patients with Respiratory Failure Caused by Acute Poisoning(2005)
• Clinical study of mechanical ventilation on the patients with acute severe organophosphorus pesticide poisoning and respiratory failure(2012)
• Effect of mechanical ventilation therapy on 36 cases of neonatal respiratory failure(2010)
• Clinical analysis of sequential mechanical ventilation in the treatment of patients with pulmonary heart disease complicated with type-II respiratory failure(2013)
• An analysis of the treatment effect xof sequential mechanical ventilation in AECOPD with severe respiratory failure in ICU(2009)