Failure of NIMV and operator factor: when making things work, sometimes it is hard

C. Salturk,A. Esquinas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/crj.12488

2018-01-01

Abstract:Despite its well-known advantages in acute respiratory failure (reduces intubation rate and mortality), non invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) have failure rates of 5%–60%, and mortality rates have been found to be higher in patients who are intubated after failure of NIV (1). Predictors for NIMV failure were defined to avoid delay in intubation which can cause clinical deterioration and increase morbidity and mortality (2). We read with great interest the article written by Bhatti et al. (3) entitled ‘Operator dependent factors implicated in failure of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for respiratory failure’ accepted to Clinical Respiratory Journal. The study evaluated retrospectively 111 patients with NIMV failure and investigated operator related factors that may have contributed to failure of NIMV and clinical outcomes. They found three most common reasons for failure as inappropriate indication (33%), progression of underlying disease (30%) and lack of titration (23%). This study definitely requires attention, since it gives valuable information to clinicians to not only prevent failure but also provide protocoled approach to initiation and maintenance of NIMV. However, we think that there are some issues to be commented on. First, the study includes chart review of patients who were initiated and failed NIMV at different places like emergency room, on medical/surgical floors, progressive care units or intensive care units. This means that different operators with different devices and different level of education and training on NIMV. Schettino et al. evaluated 441 patients with NIMV treatment in their prospective one center study. They found entubation and mortality rate in patients only treated in the emergency room as 22.6%, 7.5%, in the intensive care unit as 49.4%, 28.4% and in the ward as 27.3%, 14.9%, respectively. The authors related these diversions with different type and severity of comorbidities. We think that these situations are also valid for the study of Bhatti et al. it is crucial to report failure rates of these different places defined in the study. Also it is necessary to give information about distribution of defined operator based factors among these places. We believe that there may be differences other than operator based factors like disease severity, type of NIMV devices, equipment, and education level of medical stuff and nurse/patient ratio in these different areas. Second, although it was noted in limitations because of the retrospective nature of the study, it does not include variables such as leak; amount and management of secretions that have been proved to be influential in some studies that have evaluated the success or failure of NIMV (4). In addition data of type of respiratory failure whether hypoxic or hypercapnic was not given. It was reported that NIMV success rate of hypoxemic respiratory failure as 50% while in hypercapnic respiratory failure it is %70 (5). We believe that it would be valuable information to give ratio of operator based factors of NIMV failure among hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure. This study gives valuable and useful information about operator based factor for NIMV failure for patients with respiratory failure. Due to multiple factors that affect NIMV success, having heterogeneous places and patients make study hard to give accurate information about only operator based predictors. We consider large randomized clinical based prospective studies for operator based factors of NIMV failure.