GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Annals of King Edward Medical University  (1)
Material
Publisher
  • Annals of King Edward Medical University  (1)
Language
Years
  • 1
    In: Annals of King Edward Medical University, Annals of King Edward Medical University, Vol. 27, No. 2 ( 2021-07-17)
    Abstract: Results of invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in COVID-19 patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome are discouraging despite its prompt use. However noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is yet not a common practice internationally because of lack of global evidence advocating its effective use in severe cases of ARDS as well as dreadful concern about aerosol generation especially in patients having COVID-19 infection. Objective: To determine whether, NIPPV application is effective and safe in COVID-19 Patients. Methods: One hundred and thirty hemodynamically stable patients with severe CARDS as per Berlin definition (PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 100mm Hg), having GCS 〉 13, respiratory breathing index (RBI) 〈 105, and without any systemic complication were selected. They were managed with NIPPV in Corona Intensive Care Unit of Mayo Hospital/King Edward Medical University Lahore. A little innovation was done with the application of a specific orofacial interface, fitted with heat and moist exchanger (HME) at the interface and viral/bacterial filters at the expiratory limb of ventilatory circuit. Favorable outcome has been observed in 64% of treated cases in terms of improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, thus abating severity of ARDS from severe to mild category, in an average time span of 6 days. Remaining 36% of patients progressed to IPPV with definitive airway. During study period, 4.2% of healthcare workers (HCW) got infected with COVID-19. Associated complications of NIPPV application were claustrophobia (13.8%), nasal crusting (6.9%), aspiration (6.1%) and barotrauma (0.7%). Conclusion: In carefully selected patients, use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation with the application of HME and viral/bacterial filters is an effective, preferable and safe modality of choice to provide respiratory support, thus obviating the need for IPPV. However further larger studies are needed to confirm our recommendations.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2079-0694 , 2079-7192
    URL: Issue
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Annals of King Edward Medical University
    Publication Date: 2021
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...