TY - JOUR
T1 - Noninvasive vs invasive respiratory support for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure
AU - Mosier, Jarrod M.
AU - Subbian, Vignesh
AU - Pungitore, Sarah
AU - Prabhudesai, Devashri
AU - Essay, Patrick
AU - Bedrick, Edward J.
AU - Stocking, Jacqueline C.
AU - Fisher, Julia M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Mosier et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2024/9
Y1 - 2024/9
N2 - Background Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow. Results During the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35–1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92–2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43–7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25–1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25–3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92–2.74). Conclusions These data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.
AB - Background Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation. Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow. Results During the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35–1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92–2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43–7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25–1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25–3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92–2.74). Conclusions These data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85203322427&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85203322427&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0307849
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0307849
M3 - Article
C2 - 39240793
AN - SCOPUS:85203322427
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 19
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 9
M1 - e0307849
ER -