Outcomes for Children Receiving Noninvasive Ventilation as the First-Line Mode of Mechanical Ventilation at Intensive Care Admission: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Jenny V Morris, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Roger C Parslow, Sarah J Fleming, Jenny V Morris, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Roger C Parslow, Sarah J Fleming

Abstract

Objectives: To compare outcomes of children receiving noninvasive ventilation with those receiving invasive ventilation as first-line mode of mechanical ventilation following unplanned intensive care admission.

Design: Propensity score-matched cohort study analyzing data prospectively collected by the Pediatric Intensive Care Audit Network over 8 years (2007-2014).

Setting: Thirty-one PICUs in the United Kingdom and Ireland; twenty-one of whom submitted Pediatric Critical Care Minimum Dataset data for the entire study period.

Patients: Children consecutively admitted to study PICUs. Planned admissions following surgery, unplanned admissions from other hospitals, those on chronic ventilation, and those who did not receive mechanical ventilation on the day of PICU admission were excluded.

Interventions: Use of noninvasive ventilation, rather than invasive ventilation, as the first-line mode of mechanical ventilation.

Measurements and main results: PICU mortality, length of ventilation, length of PICU stay, and ventilator-free days at day 28. During the study period, there were 151,128 PICU admissions. A total of 15,144 admissions (10%) were eligible for analysis once predefined exclusion criteria were applied: 4,804 (31.7%) received "noninvasive ventilation first," whereas 10,221 (67.5%) received "invasive ventilation first"; 119 (0.8%) admissions could not be classified. Admitting PICU site explained 6.5% of the variation in first-line mechanical ventilation group (95% CI, 2.0-19.0%). In propensity score-matched analyses, receiving noninvasive ventilation first was associated with a significant reduction in mortality by 3.1% (95% CI, 1.7-4.6%), length of ventilation by 1.6 days (95% CI, 1.0-2.3), and length of PICU stay by 2.1 days (95% CI, 1.3-3.0), as well as an increase in ventilator-free days at day 28 by 3.7 days (95% CI, 3.1-4.3).

Conclusions: Use of noninvasive ventilation as first-line mode of mechanical ventilation in critically ill children admitted to PICU in an unplanned fashion may be associated with significant clinical benefits. Further high-quality evidence regarding optimal patient selection and timing of initiation of noninvasive ventilation could lead to less variability in clinical care between institutions and improved patient outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart detailing sample selection criteria. aIt was not possible to classify patients who received both noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive ventilation (IV) on the day of admission, as well as the subsequent day, according to Paediatric Critical Care Minimum Dataset (PCCMDS) daily data.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Distribution of the calculated propensity scores for noninvasive ventilation (NIV)-first and invasive ventilation (IV)-first patients, with or without a match (n = 13,189).

References

    1. Barry P, Morris K, Ali T. Oxford Speciality Handbook in Paediatric Intensive Care. 2010Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    1. Nava S, Carbone G, DiBattista N, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: A multicenter randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 168:1432–1437.
    1. Lightowler JV, Wedzicha JA, Elliott MW, et al. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation to treat respiratory failure resulting from exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 326:185.
    1. Plant PK, Owen JL, Elliott MW. Early use of non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on general respiratory wards: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 355:1931–1935.
    1. Antonelli M, Conti G, Rocco M, et al. A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:429–435.
    1. Ho JJ, Subramaniam P, Davis PG. Continuous distending pressure for respiratory distress in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 7:CD002271
    1. Milési C, Matecki S, Jaber S, et al. 6 cmH2O continuous positive airway pressure versus conventional oxygen therapy in severe viral bronchiolitis: A randomized trial. Pediatr Pulmonol 2013; 48:45–51.
    1. Yañez LJ, Yunge M, Emilfork M, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of noninvasive ventilation in pediatric acute respiratory failure. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2008; 9:484–489.
    1. Cam BV, Tuan DT, Fonsmark L, et al. Randomized comparison of oxygen mask treatment vs. nasal continuous positive airway pressure in dengue shock syndrome with acute respiratory failure. J Trop Pediatr 2002; 48:335–339.
    1. Basnet S, Mander G, Andoh J, et al. Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of early initiation of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in pediatric patients admitted with status asthmaticus: A pilot study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012; 13:393–398.
    1. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network: A Decade of Data. Universities of Leeds and Leicester. 2014. Available at: . Accessed March 1, 2015
    1. Ducharme-Crevier L, Essouri S, Emeriaud G. Noninvasive ventilation in pediatric intensive care: From a promising to an established therapy, but for whom, when, why, and how? Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015; 16:481–482.
    1. Wolfler A, Calderini E, Iannella E, et al. ; Network of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Study Group: Evolution of noninvasive mechanical ventilation use: A cohort study among Italian PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015; 16:418–427.
    1. Dohna-Schwake C, Stehling F, Tschiedel E, et al. Non-invasive ventilation on a pediatric intensive care unit: Feasibility, efficacy, and predictors of success. Pediatr Pulmonol 2011; 46:1114–1120.
    1. Deis JN, Abramo TJ, Crawley L. Noninvasive respiratory support. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008; 24:331–338; quiz 339.
    1. Demoule A, Girou E, Richard JC, et al. Increased use of noninvasive ventilation in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32:1747–1755.
    1. Carrillo A, Gonzalez-Diaz G, Ferrer M, et al. Non-invasive ventilation in community-acquired pneumonia and severe acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38:458–466.
    1. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011; 46:399–424.
    1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70:41–55.
    1. Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Callahan S, et al. Can we trust observational studies using propensity scores in the critical care literature? A systematic comparison with randomized clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:1870–1879.
    1. Girou E, Brun-Buisson C, Taillé S, et al. Secular trends in nosocomial infections and mortality associated with noninvasive ventilation in patients with exacerbation of COPD and pulmonary edema. JAMA 2003; 290:2985–2991.
    1. Antonelli M, Conti G, Pelosi P, et al. New treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Noninvasive pressure support ventilation delivered by helmet–a pilot controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:602–608.
    1. Honrubia T, García López FJ, Franco N, et al. Noninvasive vs conventional mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Chest 2005; 128:3916–3924.
    1. Matic I, Sakic-Zdravcevic K, Jurjevic M. Comparison of invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Randomized prospective study. Period Biol 2007; 109:137–145.
    1. Jurjević M, Matić I, Sakić-Zdravcević K, et al. Mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, noninvasive vs. invasive method (randomized prospective study). Coll Antropol 2009; 33:791–797.
    1. Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network Annual Report 2010 - 2012. Universities of Leeds and Leicester. 2013. Available at: . Accessed March 1, 2015.
    1. Slater A, Shann F, Pearson G; Paediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) Study Group: PIM2: A revised version of the Paediatric Index of Mortality. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29:278–285.
    1. Ramnarayan P, Thiru K, Parslow RC, et al. Effect of specialist retrieval teams on outcomes in children admitted to paediatric intensive care units in England and Wales: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2010; 376:698–704.
    1. Schoenfeld DA, Bernard GR; ARDS Network: Statistical evaluation of ventilator-free days as an efficacy measure in clinical trials of treatments for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:1772–1777.
    1. Shann F, Pearson G, Slater A, et al. Paediatric Index of Mortality (PIM): A mortality prediction model for children in intensive care. Intensive Care Med 1997; 23:201–207.
    1. Vrieze SI. Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychol Methods 2012; 17:228–243.
    1. Starks H, Garrido MM; Observational and Quasi-Experimental Research Methods. National Palliative Care Research Center (NSCRC) [Presentation] 2014. October 20, 2014. Available at: . Accessed March 12, 2015
    1. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011; 10:150–161.
    1. StataCorp: Stata Treatment-Effects Reference Manual. 2013College Station, TX, StataCorp LP.
    1. Macrae D, Grieve R, Allen E, et al. ; CHiP Investigators: A randomized trial of hyperglycemic control in pediatric intensive care. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:107–118.
    1. Borckink I, Essouri S, Laurent M, et al. Infants with severe respiratory syncytial virus needed less ventilator time with nasal continuous airways pressure then invasive mechanical ventilation. Acta Paediatr 2014; 103:81–85.
    1. Pancera CF, Hayashi M, Fregnani JH, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in immunocompromised pediatric patients: Eight years of experience in a pediatric oncology intensive care unit. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2008; 30:533–538.
    1. Lazner MR, Basu AP, Klonin H. Non-invasive ventilation for severe bronchiolitis: Analysis and evidence. Pediatr Pulmonol 2012; 47:909–916.
    1. Bratton SL, Newth CJ, Zuppa AF, et al. ; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network: Critical care for pediatric asthma: Wide care variability and challenges for study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2012; 13:407–414.
    1. Mayordomo-Colunga J, Pons M, López Y, et al. Predicting non-invasive ventilation failure in children from the SpO2/FiO2 (SF) ratio. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39:1095–1103.
    1. Muñoz-Bonet JI, Flor-Macián EM, Brines J, et al. Predictive factors for the outcome of noninvasive ventilation in pediatric acute respiratory failure. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2010; 11:675–680.
    1. Essouri S, Laurent M, Chevret L, et al. Improved clinical and economic outcomes in severe bronchiolitis with pre-emptive nCPAP ventilatory strategy. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40:84–91.
    1. Ganu SS, Gautam A, Wilkins B, et al. Increase in use of non-invasive ventilation for infants with severe bronchiolitis is associated with decline in intubation rates over a decade. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38:1177–1183.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅