Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation: A comparative propensity score and international cohort study

Marco González, Alejandro C. Arroliga, Fernando Frutos-Vivar, Konstantinos Raymondos, Andres Esteban, Christian Putensen, Carlos Apezteguía, Javier Hurtado, Pablo Desmery, Vinko Tomicic, José Elizalde, Fekri Abroug, Yaseen Arabi, Rui Moreno, Antonio R Anzueto, Niall D. Ferguson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) or biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) to assist-control ventilation (A/C) as their primary mode of ventilatory support. The objective was to estimate if patients ventilated with APRV/BIPAP have a lower mortality. Methods: Secondary analysis of an observational study in 349 intensive care units from 23 countries. A total of 234 patients were included who were ventilated only with APRV/BIPAP and 1,228 patients who were ventilated only with A/C. A case-matched analysis according to a propensity score was used to make comparisons between groups. Results: In logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the use of APRV/BIPAP was the country (196 of 234 patients were from German units). Patients with coma or congestive heart failure as the reason to start mechanical ventilation, pH <7.15 prior to mechanical ventilation, and patients who developed respiratory failure (SOFA score >2) after intubation with or without criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome were less likely to be ventilated with APRV/BIPAP. In the case-matched analysis there were no differences in outcomes, including mortality in the intensive care unit, days of mechanical ventilation or weaning, rate of reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, and mortality in the hospital. Conclusions: In this study, the APRV/BIPAP ventilation mode is being used widely across many causes of respiratory failure, but only in selected geographic areas. In our patient population we could not demonstrate any improvement in outcomes with APRV/BIPAP compared with assist-control ventilation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)817-827
Number of pages11
JournalIntensive Care Medicine
Volume36
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2010

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
Ventilation
Cohort Studies
Pressure
Intensive Care Units
Hospital Mortality
Artificial Respiration
Positive-Pressure Respiration
Mortality
Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Coma
Weaning
Intubation
Respiratory Insufficiency
Observational Studies
Length of Stay
Heart Failure
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis

Keywords

  • Airway pressure release ventilation
  • Assist-control ventilation
  • Epidemiology
  • Mechanical ventilation
  • Mortality
  • Propensity score

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

González, M., Arroliga, A. C., Frutos-Vivar, F., Raymondos, K., Esteban, A., Putensen, C., ... Ferguson, N. D. (2010). Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation: A comparative propensity score and international cohort study. Intensive Care Medicine, 36(5), 817-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-1837-1

Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation : A comparative propensity score and international cohort study. / González, Marco; Arroliga, Alejandro C.; Frutos-Vivar, Fernando; Raymondos, Konstantinos; Esteban, Andres; Putensen, Christian; Apezteguía, Carlos; Hurtado, Javier; Desmery, Pablo; Tomicic, Vinko; Elizalde, José; Abroug, Fekri; Arabi, Yaseen; Moreno, Rui; Anzueto, Antonio R; Ferguson, Niall D.

In: Intensive Care Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 5, 05.2010, p. 817-827.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

González, M, Arroliga, AC, Frutos-Vivar, F, Raymondos, K, Esteban, A, Putensen, C, Apezteguía, C, Hurtado, J, Desmery, P, Tomicic, V, Elizalde, J, Abroug, F, Arabi, Y, Moreno, R, Anzueto, AR & Ferguson, ND 2010, 'Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation: A comparative propensity score and international cohort study', Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 817-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-010-1837-1
González, Marco ; Arroliga, Alejandro C. ; Frutos-Vivar, Fernando ; Raymondos, Konstantinos ; Esteban, Andres ; Putensen, Christian ; Apezteguía, Carlos ; Hurtado, Javier ; Desmery, Pablo ; Tomicic, Vinko ; Elizalde, José ; Abroug, Fekri ; Arabi, Yaseen ; Moreno, Rui ; Anzueto, Antonio R ; Ferguson, Niall D. / Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation : A comparative propensity score and international cohort study. In: Intensive Care Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 817-827.
@article{3cbe386ca8204152b072affd92218840,
title = "Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation: A comparative propensity score and international cohort study",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) or biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) to assist-control ventilation (A/C) as their primary mode of ventilatory support. The objective was to estimate if patients ventilated with APRV/BIPAP have a lower mortality. Methods: Secondary analysis of an observational study in 349 intensive care units from 23 countries. A total of 234 patients were included who were ventilated only with APRV/BIPAP and 1,228 patients who were ventilated only with A/C. A case-matched analysis according to a propensity score was used to make comparisons between groups. Results: In logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the use of APRV/BIPAP was the country (196 of 234 patients were from German units). Patients with coma or congestive heart failure as the reason to start mechanical ventilation, pH <7.15 prior to mechanical ventilation, and patients who developed respiratory failure (SOFA score >2) after intubation with or without criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome were less likely to be ventilated with APRV/BIPAP. In the case-matched analysis there were no differences in outcomes, including mortality in the intensive care unit, days of mechanical ventilation or weaning, rate of reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, and mortality in the hospital. Conclusions: In this study, the APRV/BIPAP ventilation mode is being used widely across many causes of respiratory failure, but only in selected geographic areas. In our patient population we could not demonstrate any improvement in outcomes with APRV/BIPAP compared with assist-control ventilation.",
keywords = "Airway pressure release ventilation, Assist-control ventilation, Epidemiology, Mechanical ventilation, Mortality, Propensity score",
author = "Marco Gonz{\'a}lez and Arroliga, {Alejandro C.} and Fernando Frutos-Vivar and Konstantinos Raymondos and Andres Esteban and Christian Putensen and Carlos Apeztegu{\'i}a and Javier Hurtado and Pablo Desmery and Vinko Tomicic and Jos{\'e} Elizalde and Fekri Abroug and Yaseen Arabi and Rui Moreno and Anzueto, {Antonio R} and Ferguson, {Niall D.}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1007/s00134-010-1837-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "817--827",
journal = "Intensive Care Medicine",
issn = "0342-4642",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Airway pressure release ventilation versus assist-control ventilation

T2 - A comparative propensity score and international cohort study

AU - González, Marco

AU - Arroliga, Alejandro C.

AU - Frutos-Vivar, Fernando

AU - Raymondos, Konstantinos

AU - Esteban, Andres

AU - Putensen, Christian

AU - Apezteguía, Carlos

AU - Hurtado, Javier

AU - Desmery, Pablo

AU - Tomicic, Vinko

AU - Elizalde, José

AU - Abroug, Fekri

AU - Arabi, Yaseen

AU - Moreno, Rui

AU - Anzueto, Antonio R

AU - Ferguson, Niall D.

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - Purpose: To compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) or biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) to assist-control ventilation (A/C) as their primary mode of ventilatory support. The objective was to estimate if patients ventilated with APRV/BIPAP have a lower mortality. Methods: Secondary analysis of an observational study in 349 intensive care units from 23 countries. A total of 234 patients were included who were ventilated only with APRV/BIPAP and 1,228 patients who were ventilated only with A/C. A case-matched analysis according to a propensity score was used to make comparisons between groups. Results: In logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the use of APRV/BIPAP was the country (196 of 234 patients were from German units). Patients with coma or congestive heart failure as the reason to start mechanical ventilation, pH <7.15 prior to mechanical ventilation, and patients who developed respiratory failure (SOFA score >2) after intubation with or without criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome were less likely to be ventilated with APRV/BIPAP. In the case-matched analysis there were no differences in outcomes, including mortality in the intensive care unit, days of mechanical ventilation or weaning, rate of reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, and mortality in the hospital. Conclusions: In this study, the APRV/BIPAP ventilation mode is being used widely across many causes of respiratory failure, but only in selected geographic areas. In our patient population we could not demonstrate any improvement in outcomes with APRV/BIPAP compared with assist-control ventilation.

AB - Purpose: To compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients receiving airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) or biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) to assist-control ventilation (A/C) as their primary mode of ventilatory support. The objective was to estimate if patients ventilated with APRV/BIPAP have a lower mortality. Methods: Secondary analysis of an observational study in 349 intensive care units from 23 countries. A total of 234 patients were included who were ventilated only with APRV/BIPAP and 1,228 patients who were ventilated only with A/C. A case-matched analysis according to a propensity score was used to make comparisons between groups. Results: In logistic regression analysis, the most important factor associated with the use of APRV/BIPAP was the country (196 of 234 patients were from German units). Patients with coma or congestive heart failure as the reason to start mechanical ventilation, pH <7.15 prior to mechanical ventilation, and patients who developed respiratory failure (SOFA score >2) after intubation with or without criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome were less likely to be ventilated with APRV/BIPAP. In the case-matched analysis there were no differences in outcomes, including mortality in the intensive care unit, days of mechanical ventilation or weaning, rate of reintubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital, and mortality in the hospital. Conclusions: In this study, the APRV/BIPAP ventilation mode is being used widely across many causes of respiratory failure, but only in selected geographic areas. In our patient population we could not demonstrate any improvement in outcomes with APRV/BIPAP compared with assist-control ventilation.

KW - Airway pressure release ventilation

KW - Assist-control ventilation

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Mechanical ventilation

KW - Mortality

KW - Propensity score

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77951204674&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77951204674&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00134-010-1837-1

DO - 10.1007/s00134-010-1837-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 20229042

AN - SCOPUS:77951204674

VL - 36

SP - 817

EP - 827

JO - Intensive Care Medicine

JF - Intensive Care Medicine

SN - 0342-4642

IS - 5

ER -