ArticleBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Effectiveness assessment of a guideline based protocol for ventilatory support management of COPD exacerbations in an emergency department.
Article in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate clinical outcomes according to ventilatory support indication in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation in a "real-life" Emergency Department and to analyze potential predictors of successful noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.
methodsRetrospective cohort performed over an 18-month period, comparing the following patient groups with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: Group A composed of patients initially selected to receive noninvasive positive pressure ventilation without the subsequent need for invasive mechanical ventilation (successful-noninvasive positive pressure ventilation); Group B composed of patients transitioning from noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to invasive mechanical ventilation (failed-noninvasive positive pressure ventilation); and Group C composed of patients who presented with immediate need for invasive mechanical ventilation (without prior noninvasive positive pressure ventilation).
results117 consecutive chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation admissions (Group A=96; Group B=13; Group C=8) of candidates for ventilatory support were reviewed. No differences in baseline disease severity and physiological parameters were found between the groups at Emergency Department admission. Nevertheless, Group B had higher intensive care unit admission, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, and higher in-hospital mortality compared to Group A. Group C also had worse outcomes when compared to Group A. The only independent variable associated with the successful use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation were improvement in arterial carbon dioxide pressure after 1h of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use and its tolerance.
conclusionOur data confirmed in a "real life" Emergency Department cohort that successful management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation showed lower in-hospital mortality and Intensive Care Unit stay when compared to patients transitioning from noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to invasive mechanical ventilation or patients who presented an immediate need for invasive mechanical ventilation. noninvasive positive pressure ventilation tolerance and higher arterial carbon dioxide pressure reduction after 1-h of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation were predictors of successful treatment. These results should be confirmed in a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.