మా గ్రూప్ ప్రతి సంవత్సరం USA, యూరప్ & ఆసియా అంతటా 3000+ గ్లోబల్ కాన్ఫరెన్స్ ఈవెంట్లను నిర్వహిస్తుంది మరియు 1000 కంటే ఎక్కువ సైంటిఫిక్ సొసైటీల మద్దతుతో 700+ ఓపెన్ యాక్సెస్ జర్నల్లను ప్రచురిస్తుంది , ఇందులో 50000 మంది ప్రముఖ వ్యక్తులు, ప్రఖ్యాత శాస్త్రవేత్తలు ఎడిటోరియల్ బోర్డ్ సభ్యులుగా ఉన్నారు.
ఎక్కువ మంది పాఠకులు మరియు అనులేఖనాలను పొందే ఓపెన్ యాక్సెస్ జర్నల్స్
700 జర్నల్స్ మరియు 15,000,000 రీడర్లు ప్రతి జర్నల్ 25,000+ రీడర్లను పొందుతున్నారు
Abdullah Al-Murad
Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a life-threatening condition requiring mechanical ventilation to support gas exchange. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are two modes of mechanical ventilation commonly used in the treatment of ARF. The optimal use of NIV and IMV remains controversial, and understanding the best approach is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes.
Objectives: This review aims to determine the optimal use of NIV and IMV in the treatment of ARF by synthesizing the available evidence and highlighting areas where further research is needed.
Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of NIV and IMV in the treatment of ARF were included. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality, intubation rates, and length of hospital stay.
Results: NIV reduced the need for intubation and decreased mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. IMV improved mortality and increased ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). NIV was found to be the preferred mode of ventilation for hypoxemic respiratory failure, reducing the need for intubation and mortality. However, the optimal use of NIV and IMV in ARF requires careful consideration of patient characteristics. Limitations of the available evidence include a lack of consistency in study design and sample sizes.
Conclusions: NIV and IMV are both effective in the treatment of ARF, and the optimal use depends on the underlying etiology and patient characteristics. NIV should be considered as the first-line treatment for hypoxemic respiratory failure, while IMV may be preferred in patients with ARDS. However, additional research is needed to further define the optimal use of NIV and IMV in different patient populations. Clinicians should carefully evaluate patients and consider the risks and benefits of each mode of ventilation before making treatment decisions.