Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rocco, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pietropaoli, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rocco, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pietropaoli, P.
(Chest. 2004;126:1508-1515.)
© 2004 American College of Chest Physicians

Noninvasive Ventilation by Helmet or Face Mask in Immunocompromised Patients*

A Case-Control Study

Monica Rocco, MD; Donatella Dell’Utri, MD; Andrea Morelli, MD; Gustavo Spadetta, MD; Giorgio Conti, MD; Massimo Antonelli, MD and Paolo Pietropaoli, MD

* From the Department of Intensive Care (Drs. Rocco, Dell’Utri, Morelli, Spadetta, and Pietropaoli), University of Rome "La Sapienza"; and Department of Intensive Care (Drs. Conti and Antonelli), Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Correspondence to: Monica Rocco, MD, Dipartimento di Anestesia e Rianimazione, Policlinico Umberto I°, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161 Rome, Italy; e-mail: monica.rocco{at}uniroma1.it

Objective: To compare the efficacy of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) by helmet and face mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Design: Case-control study.

Setting: The general ICU of a university hospital.

Patients: Nineteen immunocompromised patients (hematologic malignancies [n = 8], solid-organ recipients [n = 8], AIDS [n = 3]) with hypoxemic ARF, fever, and lung infiltrates were treated with NPPV delivered by a helmet. Nineteen immunocompromised patients matched for diagnosis, age, simplified acute physiology score II, and PaO2/fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) receiving NPPV through a facial mask served as case-control subjects.

Results: The use of NPPV delivered via helmet was as effective as NPPV delivered via face mask in avoiding endotracheal intubations (intubation rate, 37% vs 47%, respectively; p = 0.37) and improving gas exchange; 14 patients (74%) in the helmet group showed a sustained improvement in PaO2/FIO2 ratio (ability to increase PaO2/FIO2 ratio > 200, or an increase > 100 from the baseline) in comparison with 7 patients (34%) in the mask group (p = 0.02), whose PaO2/FIO2 at treatment discontinuation was higher (p = 0.02) and had fewer complications related to NPPV (ie, skin necrosis, p = 0.01). Moreover, the patients receiving ventilation via helmet required significantly less NPPV discontinuations in the first 24 h of application (p < 0.001) than patients receiving ventilation via face mask.

Conclusions: The helmet may represent a valid alternative to a face mask in immunocompromised patients with lung infiltrates and hypoxemic ARF, increasing the patient’s tolerance (ie, the number of hours of continuous NPPV use without interruptions) and decreasing the rate of complications directly related to the administration of NPPV.

Key Words: ARDS • immunocompromised patients • noninvasive ventilation • pneumonia






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American College of Chest Physicians.