We have located links that may give you full text access.
Association of noninvasive ventilation with nosocomial infections and survival in critically ill patients.
JAMA 2000 November 9
CONTEXT: Invasive life-support techniques are a major risk factor for nosocomial infection. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be used to avoid endotracheal intubation and may reduce morbidity among patients in intensive care units (ICUs).
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of NIV is associated with decreased risk of nosocomial infections and improved survival in everyday clinical practice among patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or hypercapnic cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE).
DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study conducted in the medical ICU of a French university hospital from January 1996 through March 1998.
PATIENTS: Fifty patients with acute exacerbation of COPD or severe CPE who were treated with NIV for at least 2 hours and 50 patients treated with mechanical ventilation between 1993 and 1998 (controls), matched on diagnosis, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Logistic Organ Dysfunction score, age, and no contraindication to NIV.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of nosocomial infections, antibiotic use, lengths of ventilatory support and of ICU stay, ICU mortality, compared between cases and controls.
RESULTS: Rates of nosocomial infections and of nosocomial pneumonia were significantly lower in patients who received NIV than those treated with mechanical ventilation (18% vs 60% and 8% vs 22%; P<.001 and P =.04, respectively). Similarly, the daily risk of acquiring an infection (19 vs 39 episodes per 1000 patient-days; P =.05), proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for nosocomial infection (8% vs 26%; P =.01), mean (SD) duration of ventilation (6 [6] vs 10 [12] days; P =.01), mean (SD) length of ICU stay (9 [7] vs 15 [14] days; P =.02), and crude mortality (4% vs 26%; P =.002) were all lower among patients who received NIV than those treated with mechanical ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of NIV instead of mechanical ventilation is associated with a lower risk of nosocomial infections, less antibiotic use, shorter length of ICU stay, and lower mortality. JAMA. 2000;284:2361-2367.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of NIV is associated with decreased risk of nosocomial infections and improved survival in everyday clinical practice among patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or hypercapnic cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE).
DESIGN AND SETTING: Matched case-control study conducted in the medical ICU of a French university hospital from January 1996 through March 1998.
PATIENTS: Fifty patients with acute exacerbation of COPD or severe CPE who were treated with NIV for at least 2 hours and 50 patients treated with mechanical ventilation between 1993 and 1998 (controls), matched on diagnosis, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Logistic Organ Dysfunction score, age, and no contraindication to NIV.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of nosocomial infections, antibiotic use, lengths of ventilatory support and of ICU stay, ICU mortality, compared between cases and controls.
RESULTS: Rates of nosocomial infections and of nosocomial pneumonia were significantly lower in patients who received NIV than those treated with mechanical ventilation (18% vs 60% and 8% vs 22%; P<.001 and P =.04, respectively). Similarly, the daily risk of acquiring an infection (19 vs 39 episodes per 1000 patient-days; P =.05), proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for nosocomial infection (8% vs 26%; P =.01), mean (SD) duration of ventilation (6 [6] vs 10 [12] days; P =.01), mean (SD) length of ICU stay (9 [7] vs 15 [14] days; P =.02), and crude mortality (4% vs 26%; P =.002) were all lower among patients who received NIV than those treated with mechanical ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of NIV instead of mechanical ventilation is associated with a lower risk of nosocomial infections, less antibiotic use, shorter length of ICU stay, and lower mortality. JAMA. 2000;284:2361-2367.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app