Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Positive-end expiratory pressure reduces incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in nonhypoxemic patients.
Manzano, Francisco; Fernández-Mondéjar, Enrique; Colmenero, Manuel; Poyatos, María Eugenia; Rivera, Ricardo; Machado, Juan; Catalán, Iñaki; Artigas, Antonio.
Afiliación
  • Manzano F; Intensive Care Unit, Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital, Granada, Spain.
Crit Care Med ; 36(8): 2225-31, 2008 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18664777
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To analyze the effect on clinical outcomes of prophylactic positive end expiratory pressure in nonhypoxemic ventilated patients.

DESIGN:

Multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTING:

One trauma and two general intensive care units in two university hospitals. PATIENTS One hundred thirty-one mechanically ventilated patients with normal chest radiograph and PaO2/FiO2 above 250.

INTERVENTIONS:

Patients were randomly allocated to receive mechanical ventilation with 5-8 cm H2O of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (PEEP group, n = 66) or no-PEEP (control group, n = 65). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

RESULTS:

Primary end-point variable was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included microbiologically confirmed ventilator-associated pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, barotrauma, atelectasis, and hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 <175). Both groups were similar at randomization in demographic characteristics, intensive care unit admission diagnoses, severity of illness, and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Hospital mortality rate was similar (p = 0.58) between PEEP (29.7%) and control (25.4%) groups. Ventilator-associated pneumonia was detected in 16 (25.4%) patients in the control group and 6 (9.4%) in the PEEP group (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval = 0.15-0.84; p = 0.017). The number of patients who developed hypoxemia was significantly higher in the control group (34 of 63 patients, 54%) than in the PEEP group (12 of 64, 19%) (p < 0.001), and the hypoxemia developed after a shorter period (median [interquartile range]) in the control group than in the PEEP group (38 [20-70] hrs vs. 77 [32-164] hrs, p < 0.001). Groups did not significantly differ in incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (14% in controls vs. 5% in the PEEP group, p = 0.08), barotrauma (8% vs. 2%, respectively, p = 0.12), or atelectasis (27% vs. 19%, respectively, p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings indicate that application of prophylactic PEEP in nonhypoxemic ventilated patients reduces the number of hypoxemia episodes and the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Respiración Artificial / Respiración con Presión Positiva / Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador / Hipoxia Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Crit Care Med Año: 2008 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Respiración Artificial / Respiración con Presión Positiva / Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador / Hipoxia Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Crit Care Med Año: 2008 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: España