Clinical practice of non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an evidence-based treatment for acute respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, suboptimal application of NIV in clinical practice, possibly due to poor guideline adherence, can impact patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate guideline adherence to NIV for acute COPD exacerbations and explore its impact on mortality. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed in two Dutch medical centers from 2019 to 2021. All patients admitted to the pulmonary ward or intensive care unit with a COPD exacerbation were included. An indication for NIV was considered in the event of a respiratory acidosis. RESULTS: A total of 1162 admissions (668 unique patients) were included. NIV was started in 154 of the 204 admissions (76%) where NIV was indicated upon admission. Among 78 admissions where patients deteriorated later on, NIV was started in 51 admissions (65%). Considering patients not receiving NIV due to contra-indications or patient refusal, the overall guideline adherence rate was 82%. Common reasons for not starting NIV when indicated included no perceived signs of respiratory distress, opting for comfort care only, and choosing a watchful waiting approach. Better survival was observed in patients who received NIV when indicated compared to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The adherence to guidelines regarding NIV initiation is good. Nevertheless, further improving NIV treatment in clinical practice could be achieved through training healthcare professionals to increase awareness and reduce reluctance in utilizing NIV. By addressing these factors, patient outcomes may be further enhanced.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early assisted discharge for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations: the design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are the main cause for hospitalisation. These hospitalisations result in a high pressure on hospital beds and high health care costs. Because of the increasing prevalence of COPD this will only become worse. Hospital at home is one of the alternatives that has been proved to be a safe alternative for hospitalisation in COPD. Most schemes are early assisted discharge schemes with specialised respiratory nurses providing care at home. Whether this type of service is cost-effective depends on the setting in which it is delivered and the way in which it is organised. METHODS/DESIGN: GO AHEAD (Assessment Of Going Home under Early Assisted Discharge) is a 3-months, randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial. Patients admitted to hospital for a COPD exacerbation are either discharged on the fourth day of admission and further treated at home, or receive usual inpatient hospital care. Home treatment is supervised by general nurses. Primary outcome is the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an early assisted discharge intervention in comparison with usual inpatient hospital care for patients hospitalised with a COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes include effects on quality of life, primary informal caregiver burden and patient and primary caregiver satisfaction. Additionally, a discrete choice experiment is performed to provide insight in patient and informal caregiver preferences for different treatment characteristics. Measurements are performed on the first day of admission and 3 days, 7 days, 1 month and 3 months thereafter. Ethical approval has been obtained and the study has been registered. DISCUSSION: This article describes the study protocol of the GO AHEAD study. Early assisted discharge could be an effective and cost-effective method to reduce length of hospital stay in the Netherlands which is beneficial for patients and society. If effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can be proven, implementation in the Dutch health care system should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR1129.

Cigarette smoke retention and bronchodilation in patients with COPD. A controlled randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchodilators are the cornerstone for symptomatic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Many patients use these agents while persisting in their habit of cigarette smoking. We hypothesized that bronchodilators increase pulmonary retention of cigarette smoke and hence the risk of smoking-related (cardiovascular) disease. Our aim was to investigate if bronchodilation causes increased pulmonary retention of cigarette smoke in patients with COPD. METHODS: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover trial, in which COPD patients smoked cigarettes during undilated conditions at one session and maximal bronchodilated conditions at the other session. Co-primary outcomes were pulmonary tar and nicotine retention. We performed a secondary analysis that excludes errors due to possible contamination. Secondary outcomes included the biomarkers C-reactive protein and fibrinogen, and smoke inhalation patterns. RESULTS: Of 39 randomized patients, 35 patients completed the experiment and were included in the final analysis. Bronchodilation did not significantly increase tar retention (-4.5%, p = 0.20) or nicotine retention (-2.6%, p = 0.11). Secondary analysis revealed a potential reduction of retention due to bronchodilation: tar retention (-3.8%, p = 0.13), and nicotine retention (-3.4%, p = 0.01). Bronchodilation did not modify our secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not support the hypothesis that cigarette tar and nicotine retention in COPD patients is increased by bronchodilation, whereas we observed a possibility towards less retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00981851.

Patient preference and satisfaction in hospital-at-home and usual hospital care for COPD exacerbations: results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of clear differences in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness between hospital-at-home schemes and usual hospital care, patient preference plays an important role. This study investigates patient preference for treatment place, associated factors and patient satisfaction with a community-based hospital-at-home scheme for COPD exacerbations. METHODS: The study is part of a larger randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to usual hospital care or early assisted discharge which incorporated discharge at day 4 and visits by a home care nurse until day 7 of treatment (T+4 days). The hospital care group received care as usual and was discharged from hospital at day 7. Patients were followed for 90 days (T+90 days). Patient preference for treatment place and patient satisfaction (overall and per item) were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively using questionnaires at T+4 days and T+90 days. Factors associated with patient preference were analysed in the early assisted discharge group. RESULTS: 139 patients were randomised. No difference was found in overall satisfaction. At T+4 days, patients in the early assisted discharge group were less satisfied with care at night and were less able to resume normal daily activities. At T+90 days there were no differences for the separate items. Patient preference for home treatment at T+4 days was 42% in the hospital care group and 86% in the early assisted discharge group and 35% and 59% at T+90 days. Patients' mental state was associated with preference. CONCLUSION: Results support the wider implementation of early assisted discharge for COPD exacerbations and this treatment option should be offered to selected patients that prefer home treatment.