| Title |
Non-invasive ventilation with intelligent volume-assured pressure support versus pressure-controlled ventilation: effects on the respiratory event rate and sleep quality in COPD with chronic hypercapnia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/copd.s126970 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georg Nilius, Nato Katamadze, Ulrike Domanski, Maik Schroeder, Karl-Josef Franke |
| Abstract |
COPD patients who develop chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure have a poor prognosis. Treatment of choice, especially the best form of ventilation, is not well known. This study compared the effects of pressure-controlled (spontaneous timed [ST]) non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and NIV with intelligent volume-assured pressure support (IVAPS) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients regarding the effects on alveolar ventilation, adverse patient/ventilator interactions and sleep quality. This prospective, single-center, crossover study randomized patients to one night of NIV using ST then one night with the IVAPS function activated, or vice versa. Patients were monitored using polysomnography (PSG) and transcutaneous carbon dioxide pressure (PtcCO2) measurement. Patients rated their subjective experience (total score, 0-45; lower scores indicate better acceptability). Fourteen patients were included (4 females, age 59.4±8.9 years). The total number of respiratory events was low, and similar under pressure-controlled (5.4±6.7) and IVAPS (8.3±10.2) conditions (P=0.064). There were also no clinically relevant differences in PtcCO2 between pressure-controlled and IVAPS NIV (52.9±6.2 versus 49.1±6.4 mmHg). Respiratory rate was lower under IVAPS overall; between-group differences reached statistical significance during wakefulness and non-rapid eye movement sleep. Ventilation pressures were 2.6 cmH2O higher under IVAPS versus pressure-controlled ventilation, resulting in a 20.1 mL increase in breathing volume. Sleep efficiency was slightly higher under pressure-controlled ventilation versus IVAPS. Respiratory arousals were uncommon (24.4/h [pressure-controlled] versus 25.4/h [IVAPS]). Overall patient assessment scores were similar, although there was a trend toward less discomfort during IVAPS. Our results show that IVAPS NIV allows application of higher nocturnal ventilation pressures versus ST without affecting sleep quality or inducing ventilation- associated events. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Uruguay | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,239,390
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,727
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,337
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#49
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.