Abstract
Study Objectives
Patients suffering from any types of respiratory distress are treated via two types of mechanical ventilation: NIMV and IMV. The second type of ventilation is more progressive for patients suffering from ARF in the context of medical treatment. Anyhow, the controversy surrounding conventional mechanical ventilation is persistent. The study aims to compare the efficiency of conventional IMV against NIMV in ARF patients in different setups.
Study Design
Randomized control trials were conducted at different multicenters.
Research Setting:
10 multipurpose ICUs.
Sample Size:
One hundred and eighty patients coming with a complaint of respiratory distress were included in the study
Results
The participants of the study who receives non-IMV usually seek help from face masks in PEEP and pressure support mode, whereas those patients who are going for IMV receive it through tracheal tube
Statistics
The independent variables were avoiding mortality, resource consumption, and intubation. Seventy-six out of one hundred and four patients were treated via NIMV, with the assistance of a face mask, and twenty-eight patients were treated by IMV through endotracheal intubation. When intubation in both groups was compared, results revealed that 100% of patients in conventional groups were intubated, 60% from non-invasive groups were intubated, and the remaining 40% were ventilated through face masks. The relative risk reduction in the conventional ventilation type was 45%, having a p-value equal to 0.034. Similar outcomes were obtained from stratification of ARF type.