Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) vs. Non Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIV) in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema (ACPE): A Prospective Randomized Multicentric Study

Ferrari, Giovanni; Groff, Paolo; Filippi, Giovanna De; Giostra, Fabrizio; Mazzone, M; Portale, Grazia; Silveri, Nicolò Gentiloni; Aprà, Franco; Vitale, Erin; Olliveri, F.

doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2006.02.044

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moritz et al .’s findings were consistent with the other RCTs, as there were no differences between either technique on the incidence of MI. [ 22 27 34 ] This suggests that irrespective of the etiology of ACPO, whether it is due to MI or not, CPAP is equally effective as BiPAP and is safe to use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to etiologies other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. To systematically review the evidence regarding the effectiveness of BiPAP in non-COPD patients with AHRF. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus were searched according to prespecified criteria (PROSPERO-CRD42018089875). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of BiPAP versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), invasive mechanical ventilation, or O 2 therapy in adults with non-COPD AHRF were included. The primary outcomes of interest were the rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and mortality. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed, and data were synthesized and meta-analyzed where appropriate. Two thousand four hundred and eighty-five records were identified after removing duplicates. Eighty-eight articles were identified for full-text assessment, of which 82 articles were excluded. Six studies, of generally low or uncertain risk-of-bias, were included involving 320 participants with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPO) and solid tumors. No significant differences were seen between BiPAP ventilation and CPAP with regard to the rate of progression to ETI (risk ratio [RR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–3.62, P = 0.37) and in-hospital mortality rate (RR = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.25–1.99, P = 0.51) in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. The efficacy of BiPAP appears similar to CPAP in reducing the rates of ETI and mortality in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. Further research on other non-COPD conditions which commonly cause AHRF such as obesity hypoventilation syndrome is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Vital¹,

Ladeira

Atallah

2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

260

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New citation: conclusions changed We include seven new studies in our review update. We have excluded 15 previously-included studies from the update. Our conclusions now include strength-of-evidence recommendations and have been updated. 30 October 2018 Updated A new review team has updated this review and metaanalysis. We compared non-invasive positive pressure ventilation to standard medical care for acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Our inclusion criteria have been updated and we include RCTs only. We performed our updated literature search from database inception to 20 September 2018. We identified new articles for inclusion and have fully revised this systematic review. History 0416 Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

show abstract

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Berbenetz

Wang

Brown

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) vs. Non Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIV) in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema (ACPE): A Prospective Randomized Multicentric Study

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About