Randomized trial of bilevel versus continuous positive airway pressure for acute pulmonary edema

摘要

Background Studies have shown different clinical outcomes of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) from those of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Objective We evaluated whether bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) more rapidly improves dyspnea, ventilation, and acidemia without increasing the myocardial infarction (MI) rate compared to continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPAP) in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (APE). Methods Patients with APE were randomized to either BPAP or CPAP. Vital signs and dyspnea scores were recorded at baseline, 30 min, 1 h, and 3 h. Blood gases were obtained at baseline, 30 min, and 1 h. Patients were monitored for MI, endotracheal intubation (ETI), lengths of stay (LOS), and hospital mortality. Results Fourteen patients received CPAP and 13 received BPAP. The two groups were similar at baseline (ejection fraction, dyspnea, vital signs, acidemia/oxygenation) and received similar medical treatment. At 30 min, PaO2:FIO2 was improved in the BPAP group compared to baseline (283 vs. 132, p 0.05) and the CPAP group (283 vs. 189, p 0.05). Thirty-minute dyspnea scores were lower in the BPAP group compared to the CPAP group (p = 0.05). Fewer BPAP patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission (38% vs. 92%, p 0.05). There were no differences between groups in MI or ETI rate, LOS, or mortality. Conclusions Compared to CPAP to treat APE, BPAP more rapidly improves oxygenation and dyspnea scores, and reduces the need for ICU admission. Further, BPAP does not increase MI rate compared to CPAP.