Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure: Comparative Effectiveness
Clinical Questions Addressed by This Comparative Effectiveness Review (3 of 3)
This comparative effectiveness review attempted to address four key questions. Key Questions 3 and 4 are listed on this slide:
Key Question 3: Is early extubation to noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV), when compared with usual care, associated with less morbidity, lower mortality, fewer adverse events, or less medical utilization:
a. In adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory failure?
b. In adults with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema?
c. In adults with acute respiratory failure due to other causes including pneumonia, asthma, obesity hypoventilation syndrome, and interstitial lung disease?
d. In adults with acute respiratory failure in selective settings including the postoperative setting and the post-transplant setting?
Key Question 4: For Key Questions 1–3, do the effectiveness and risks of NPPV vary by setting and associated resources, experience and training of clinicians, and use of protocols or by patient characteristics (e.g., morbid obesity, mental status changes, overall disease burden)?
- Williams JW Jr, Cox CE, Hargett CW, et al. Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation (NPPV) for Acute Respiratory Failure: Comparative Effectiveness. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 68 (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; July 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC089-EF. Available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/nppv.cfm.
Your slide tray is being processed.