0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema:  Systematic Review and Meta-analysis FREE

Josep Masip, MD; Marta Roque, BSc; Bernat Sánchez, MD; Rafael Fernández, MD; Mireia Subirana, RN; José Angel Expósito, BSc
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: ICU Department, Hospital Dos de Maig Consorci Sanitari Integral, University of Barcelona (Drs Masip and Sánchez) and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona (Mss Roque and Subirana and Mr Expósito), Barcelona, and Servei de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital de Sabadell, Corporació Parc Taulí, Sabadell (Dr Fernández), Spain.

More Author Information
JAMA. 2005;294(24):3124-3130. doi:10.1001/jama.294.24.3124.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context In patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema noninvasive ventilation may reduce intubation rate, but the impact on mortality and the superiority of one technique over another have not been clearly established.

Objective To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the short-term effect of noninvasive ventilation on major clinical outcomes.

Data Sources MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to October 2005) and Cochrane databases (library issue 4, 2005) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published from January 1, 1988, to October 31, 2005.

Study Selection and Data Extraction Included trials were all parallel studies comparing noninvasive ventilation to conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute pulmonary edema. Comparisons of different techniques, either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV), were also included.

Data Synthesis Fifteen trials were selected. Overall, noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced the mortality rate by nearly 45% compared with conventional therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.78; P = .72 for heterogeneity). The results were significant for CPAP (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = .44 for heterogeneity) but not for NIPSV (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.05; P = .76 for heterogeneity), although there were fewer studies in the latter. Both modalities showed a significant decrease in the “need to intubate” rate compared with conventional therapy: CPAP (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.58; P = .21 for heterogeneity), NIPSV (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; P = .24 for heterogeneity), and together (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P = .20 for heterogeneity). There were no differences in intubation or mortality rates in the analysis of studies comparing the 2 techniques.

Conclusions Noninvasive ventilation reduces the need for intubation and mortality in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Although the level of evidence is higher for CPAP, there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP vs NIPSV.

Figures in this Article

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a modality of ventilatory support without endotracheal intubation and sedation that has demonstrated to be useful in several forms of respiratory failure. In patients with severe exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it has been shown to reduce mortality.1,2 In the setting of acute pulmonary edema, NIV has been shown to reduce the intubation rate in several randomized trials, either using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)38 or bilevel noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV).8,9 The technique of CPAP is simpler and may be performed with an oxygen source connected to a tight-fitting face mask or helmet, with an expiratory valve to maintain constant positive intrathoracic pressure. Conversely, NIPSV is more complex, requires a ventilator to provide 2 levels of pressure: one to assist patients with inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) and the other, like CPAP, to maintain expiratory positive pressure (EPAP).

With widespread adoption of NIV in patients with acute and chronic respiratory failure over the last 2 decades, acute pulmonary edema is currently the second most common indication for NIV in clinical practice,10,11 but its use is often based more on perceived efficacy than on scientific evidence.11 This may be explained because no single trial has shown an impact in hospital mortality, and considerable controversy remains over which technique is superior to the other.12,13

We undertook a systematic review to investigate the effect of NIV on the main outcomes (intubation and mortality) comparing the 2 techniques to each other and to conventional oxygen therapy.

Search Strategy

We aimed to identify all randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of NIV in patients with acute pulmonary edema. The electronic search strategy applied standard filters for identification of randomized clinical trials. Databases searched were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (from inception to October 2005), and EMBASE (from inception to October 2005). We did not apply language restrictions. In addition to the electronic search, we checked out cross-references from original articles and reviews and sometimes contacted authors to obtain additional unpublished data. Our search included the following: continuous positive airway pressure (Medical Subject Headings [MeSH]); continuous positive airway*; biphasic intermittent positive airway; bilevel positive airway*; noninvasive ventilatory-assistance apparatus; noninvasive support ventilation; noninvasive ventilat*; non-invasive ventilat*; CPAP; Bipap; pulmonary edema (MeSH); acute pulmonary edema; heart failure, congestive (MeSH); edema, cardiac (MeSH); acute cardiogenic edema linked with randomized controlled trial OR controlled clinical trial OR randomized controlled trials OR random allocation OR double-blind method OR single-blind method OR clinical trial OR clinical trials in various combinations.

Selection of Studies

We restricted the analysis to parallel randomized trials comparing NIV to conventional oxygen therapy or to another NIV modality. Study designs containing inadequately adjusted planned cointerventions and crossover trials were not included. Studies that analyzed the application of NIV in patients with acute pulmonary edema as a part of a group of patients with acute respiratory failure were excluded, as were studies published only in abstract form and those written in a nonaccessible language after failure to obtain more complete data.

Data Collection

The initial selection was performed by distributing references among pairs of independent reviewers. A full-text copy of all studies of possible relevance was obtained and data from each study was extracted independently by paired reviewers, using a prestandardized data abstraction form. Data extracted were checked by a third reviewer (J.M. or M.R.) for accuracy. The reviewers decided which trials fitted the inclusion criteria focusing on study design, patients' characteristics, protocol of the interventions, outcomes measured, and main results. Any disagreement appearing during the process was solved by discussion and team consensus.

Methodological quality of the included trials was assessed collecting data on key domains related to validity14,15: reporting of allocation concealment, description of an adequate randomization method, and specification of loss of subjects.

The primary outcomes for the included trials were treatment failure, endotracheal intubation, myocardial infarction, resolution time, therapeutical success at 2 hours, 48-hour mortality, in-hospital mortality, and specific laboratory or physiological parameters. The primary outcomes for the present study were treatment failure and in-hospital mortality because all the included trials presented data about these items. However, treatment failure was often reported using different definitions. It was endotracheal intubation in some studies, “criteria for intubation” (which was not necessarily performed) in others, and some arbitrary clinical or blood gas criteria at different intervals of time in others. For this item, we finally decided to select the variable “need to intubate,” which included those patients who were intubated and those who needed to be intubated but were not, either due to successful rescue NIV, patient's refusal, or a medical decision on account of serious comorbidities.

Myocardial infarction was considered a secondary outcome in the present study. This complication was computed whether it was identified as the cause of acute pulmonary edema or was diagnosed soon after admission. Previous episodes of myocardial infarction were not counted. Other terms like intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, one-year mortality, physiological measurements at baseline and at 1 hour, and adverse effects were also collected but were not analyzed because there was a lack of this information in many of the studies.

Although there were heterogeneities in the definition of acute pulmonary edema, it was generally described as dyspnea of acute onset, with physical and radiological signs of pulmonary edema. In addition, in almost all the studies hypoxemia was required for diagnosis, whether assessed by pulse-oximetry or arterial blood gas samples.

Analysis

We summarized available data for all trials reporting results on need to intubate or mortality, computing pooled risk ratios (RRs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by means of a fixed-effects meta-analysis model. We examined heterogeneity using a χ2 test. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager (Revman version 4.2 for Windows, Oxford, England), the Cochrane Collaboration's software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews. Although the main analysis was made considering available data as finally published by authors, an intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis was also performed in order to obtain more exact results, assuming that lost or withdrawn patients experienced outcomes (either need to intubate or death). Three-arm trials were analyzed as 2-arm separate trials in each comparison, duplicating the control group data. A sensitivity analysis was performed correcting for this artificial sample size increase, showing no relevant differences with respect to the main analysis.

Publication bias was assessed applying the Egger et al16 and Begg et al17 statistical tests to the 2 main outcomes of the included trials: intubation and in-hospital mortality. Publication bias was studied separately for trials comparing NIV with control and for trials comparing modalities of NIV.

Study Selection

Our initial electronic search identified 559 studies. Of these, 532 were excluded because they were not randomized trials, did not evaluate NIV in patients with acute pulmonary edema, were duplicated references, or were not relevant. Twenty-seven studies were retrieved for more detailed analysis, 11 of which were excluded. Two were excluded because of crossover design18,19; 1 for out-of-hospital setting with inappropriate allocation20; 1 for recruitment of patients with acute pulmonary edema as a part of a series with acute respiratory failure21; 1 for study design containing inadequately adjusted planned cointerventions22; 2 for duplicated publications, partial6 or complete23; 3 for results reported exclusively in proceedings,2426 and 1 study published in a nonaccessible language.27

The flow diagram of the trial selection process is shown in Figure 1. Sixteen studies were selected, one of which was finally excluded because the reported outcomes did not meet our selection criteria.28 Thus, we included 15 trials in the meta-analysis.35,79,2937

Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Trial Selection
Graphic Jump Location
Study Description

Trial characteristics are summarized in the Table. Although all were published in English, they represent an international experience, including data from 11 countries. Three studies were multiple-center trials, whereas the others were conducted in a single center.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Randomized Studies Analyzing Noninvasive Ventilation

Causes of acute pulmonary edema were reported in 11 of the studies35,79,29,30,34,36,37 and were described as acute coronary syndrome in 203 (31%) of the patients, hypertension in 178 (27%), or worsening heart failure in 92 (14%). Other precipitants like respiratory tract infection, arrhythmia, volume overload, or treatment noncompliance, accounted for 28% of the cases. Causes of death were reported in few studies5,8,9,30,35,36 and half of the cases were related to shock.

All trials used full face masks (oronasal) but nasal masks were also used in 27% of them. Nine studies compared CPAP with conventional oxygen therapy,35,7,8,2932 3 of them involved in a 3-branch design concomitantly analyzing NIPSV.8,30,32 Six studies compared NIPSV with conventional oxygen therapy,8,9,30,3234 3 being those mentioned with 3 branches. Finally, 6 studies compared CPAP with NIPSV8,30,32,3537 and again, 3 of them also compared conventional therapy. The CPAP level used in these trials ranged from 2.5 to 12.5 cm H2O although the most frequent pressure was 10 cm H2O. The level of NIPSV was variable. Average IPAP ranged from 14.5 to 20 cm H2O with 15 cm H2O being the most repeated value. Conversely, EPAP was set at 5 cm H2O in most trials. Ventilators used for NIPSV differed substantially from one study to another. Intensive care unit ventilators were used in one trial,9 whereas specific NIV portable ventilators were used in the others. Early studies used very simple devices.

In general, methodological quality was acceptable. Eleven out of 15 trial reports described the use of appropriate randomization methods, mainly computer-generated randomization lists.4,79,3137 Nine of the studies described the use of a concealed allocation method, all but one using sealed envelopes with or without external randomization,3,79,31,32,34,36,37 and all studies reported the number of patients, if any, lost to follow-up. Nine studies included sample-size calculations.4,79,3337 Nine of the studies found significant improvement in at least 1 of the main outcomes for which the trial was designed, whereas all the studies found significant improvement in secondary outcomes.

The analysis of the publication bias yielded no significant results for either test or comparison group.

Evidence Synthesis

NIV and Conventional Oxygen Therapy. Pooled data included 727 patients. Overall, NIV significantly reduced the risk of mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy (P <.001; Figure 2). The results were significant for CPAP, whereas NIPSV tended toward a 40% reduction in the risk of mortality (P = .07).However, the number of patients studied with NIPSV was lower than with CPAP and the proportional weight for NIPSV in the pooled data analysis was only 35%. When the analysis was performed by intention-to-treat, computing withdrawals as events, RRs and 95% CIs from a random-effects model did not differ significantly, showing a global reduction in mortality risk of 43% for NIV (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79; P = .73 for heterogeneity), which was 46% for CPAP (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82; P = .40 for heterogeneity) and 37% for NIPSV (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37-1.06; P = .87 for heterogeneity).

Figure 2. Effects of Noninvasive Ventilation on Death
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers are proportional to the amount of data contributed by each trial.

Taken together the 2 NIV modalities demonstrated a significant 57% reduction in the need-to-intubate risk (P<.001; Figure 3). The decrease was statistically significant either for CPAP or NIPSV. Similar results were seen when the analysis was performed by intention to treat: 56% reduction in need-to-intubate risk for pooled data (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.59; P = .31 for heterogeneity), 60% reduction for CPAP (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.58; P = .23 for heterogeneity), and 49% for NIPSV (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.78; P = .42 for heterogeneity).

Figure 3. Effects of Noninvasive Ventilation on Need to Intubate
Graphic Jump Location

The overall myocardial infarction rate for NIV was 78 (22.5%) of 346, which was similar to that observed for conventional therapy, 78 (26.8%) of 292 (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.17; P = .99 for heterogeneity). In about 60% of the cases, myocardial infarction was reported as a cause of acute pulmonary edema. Adverse effects like vomiting, abdominal distention, claustrophobia, or skin reactions were infrequent and were reported only in a few patients.

Comparison Between CPAP and NIPSV. Six studies compared CPAP with NIPSV, and 3 of these also compared the 2 techniques with conventional treatment. Overall, the number of patients included in these studies was 219. No differences were seen in the main outcomes, mortality and need-to-intubate rate, in the studies comparing CPAP to NIPSV (Figure 4). Although a slight tendency in favor of NIPSV was observed in relation to the intubation rate, no directional trend in mortality was seen.

Figure 4. Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Noninvasive Pressure Support Ventilation
Graphic Jump Location

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation to reduce intubation rate and mortality in patients with acute pulmonary edema. In a previous systematic review published in 1998,38 CPAP was associated with a decrease in need for intubation (risk difference −26%) and a trend to decrease mortality, but there was insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of NIPSV, either compared with standard therapy or CPAP, because there were no randomized trials at that time. Nevertheless, in the last 7 years, many studies have been published evaluating either CPAP or NIPSV in patients with acute pulmonary edema. Probably as a result of increased sample size, our meta-analysis including these trials has clearly reinforced the role of CPAP in comparison with conventional therapy, showing a dramatic reduction in the need for intubation (reduction in risk 60%) and a decrease in mortality (47%), which reached statistical significance. Parallel to these results, NIPSV demonstrated a similar reduction in the need for intubation (52%) and a trend to decrease mortality in comparison with conventional therapy. As in the previous meta-analysis with CPAP,38 the impact of NIPSV on mortality did not reach statistical significance, possibly because the number of patients included in the model remains underpowered to demonstrate a substantial decrease in mortality. Although additional research would resolve this issue, current evidence on the effectiveness of NIV, especially CPAP, over conventional treatment supports the use of this technique as standard therapy and further comparisons between NIPSV and conventional oxygen therapy would not be considered acceptable.

In the comparison of NIV modalities, NIPSV has the potential advantage over CPAP of assisting the respiratory muscles during inspiration, which would result in faster alleviation of dyspnea and exhaustion.12 Nevertheless, these physiological benefits did not translate into primary outcomes in our meta-analysis, which did not find differences between CPAP and NIPSV in terms of intubation or mortality. This equivalence remained whether some nonpublished trials24,25 not included in the analysis, were incorporated into the model (data available on request). In addition, even in patients with acute pulmonary edema and hypercapnia, a condition usually associated with muscle fatigue, a recent study did not demonstrate differences between these techniques either.37 Hypercapnic patients were expected to be the target population for NIPSV for physiological reasons and especially after the favorable results in the post hoc analyses of some studies using NIPSV.34,39

The incidence of myocardial infarction for the interventional therapies analyzed in the studies was similar. Although a preliminary study35 described a higher rate of acute myocardial infarction with NIPSV, no other trial found this incidence and a recent study, specifically addressing this issue, showed no differences between both techniques.36 Therefore, the question of whether one technique offers advantage over the other and what subset of patients would benefit more with either one of these techniques remains unresolved.13

The present meta-analysis has several limitations. First, criteria for diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema are not well established. In the new guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure proposed by the European Society of Cardiology,40 2 types of acute pulmonary edema are recognized: hypertensive crisis and non–hypertensive pulmonary edema. The prognosis in terms of intubation and mortality differs41 and the proportion of each type of acute pulmonary edema included in the studies was not well defined. Second, the characteristics of the ventilators (displays, leakage compensation, FiO2 range, trigger, etc), the level of NIPSV used and the experience of the teams were relatively different in the trials and all of these variables may influence the results of this technique.42 This is not the case for CPAP because it is less dependent on the experience or the device and shows much lower variability in the studies. Third, besides ameliorating fatigue, the main advantage of NIV is to avoid intubation and its associated complications, subsequently reducing the mortality rate. Several studies used rescue NIV, sometimes NIPSV in CPAP groups or either NIPSV or CPAP in conventional groups. This might have introduced some conservative bias in the estimation of the mortality rate. Fourth, although our analysis did not find significant publication bias, this result must be taken with caution due to the low power of tests analyzing this issue when the number of trials is small. Finally, although many trials of this meta-analysis included a small sample size, more than half were powered enough to demonstrate significant differences between interventions in the main outcomes. The limited size of some of these trials, however, reinforces the necessity of our meta-analysis. In addition, it should be mentioned that the critical phase of acute pulmonary edema, when patients are eligible, may be extremely short because some patients may require immediate intubation or may rapidly ameliorate after starting medical therapy. This rapid evolution has seriously limited the recruitment capacity of the studies.

Despite these limitations our quantitative systematic review of existing literature demonstrates that NIV reduces intubation rate and mortality in patients with acute pulmonary edema. Noninvasive ventilation has recently been categorized as class IIa, level of evidence A, in the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment for acute heart failure by the European Society of Cardiology,40 based on some of the trials analyzed in the present study.36,9,22,31,35 Given the results of our review, we think that NIV should be strongly considered as a first-line treatment.

Corresponding Author: Josep Masip, MD, ICU Department, Hospital Dos de Maig Consorci Sanitari Integral Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Dos de Maig 301, 08025 Barcelona, Spain (jmasip@ub.edu).

Author Contributions: Dr Masip had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Masip, Roque, Sánchez, Fernández.

Acquisition of data: Masip, Roque, Sánchez, Subirana, Expósito.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Masip, Roque, Sánchez, Subirana, Expósito

Drafting of the manuscript: Masip.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Masip, Roque, Sánchez, Fernández, Subirana, Expósito.

Statistical analysis: Masip, Roque.

Obtained funding: Masip, Roque.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Roque, Sánchez, Fernández, Subirana, Expósito.

Study supervision: Masip, Roque, Fernández.

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This project was funded in part by the nonprofit Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS) PI04/90064. The grant covered administrative material and a scholarship.

Role of the Sponsor: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, did not participate in the design and conduct of the study, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Acknowledgment: We thank Carolyn Newey (language editor at Institut de Recerca de l’Hospital de la Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Barcelona) and Mitsi Ito (English Essentials) for editing the manuscript and Joaquim Páez (attending physician, ICU Department, Hospital Dos de Maig de Barcelona) for his constant support throughout the project.

Brochard L, Mancebo J, Wysocki M.  et al.  Noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  N Engl J Med. 1995;333:817-822
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ram FS, Picot J, Lightowler J, Wedzicha JA. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;((3)):CD004104
PubMed
Räsänen J, Heikklä J, Downs J, Nikki P, Väisänen I, Viitanen A. Continuous positive airway pressure by face mask in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:296-300
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bersten AD, Holt AW, Vedig AE, Skowronski GA, Baggoley CJ. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask.  N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1825-1830
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lin M, Yang YF, Chiang HT, Chang MS, Chiang BN, Cheitlin MD. Reappraisal of continuous positive airway pressure therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Chest. 1995;107:1379-1386
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Takeda S, Nejima J, Takano T.  et al.  Effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on pulmonary edema complicating acute myocardial infarction.  Jpn Circ J. 1998;62:553-558
PubMed   |  Link to Article
L'Her E, Duquesne F, Girou E.  et al.  Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in elderly cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients.  Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:882-888
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Park M, Sangean MC, Volpe MC.  et al.  Randomized, prospective trial of oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure by face mask in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2407-2415
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Masip J, Betbesé AJ, Páez J.  et al.  Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized study.  Lancet. 2000;356:2126-2132
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Antonelli M, Conti G, Moro ML.  et al.  Predictors of failure of noninvasive positive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.  Intensive Care Med. 2001;27:1718-1728
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burns KE, Sinuff T, Adhhikari NK.  et al.  Bilevel noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure.  Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1477-1483
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wysocki M. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: better than continuous positive airway pressure?  Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:1-2
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mehta S, Nava S. Mask ventilation and cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:757-759
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D.  et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?  Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias.  JAMA. 1995;273:408-412
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.  BMJ. 1997;315:629-634
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.  Biometrics. 1994;50:1088-1099
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Vaisanen IT, Rasanen J. Continuous positive airway pressure and supplemental oxygen in the treatment of cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Chest. 1987;92:481-485
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chadda K, Annane D, Hart N.  et al.  Cardiac and respiratory effects of continuous positive airway pressure and noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiac pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 2002;30:2457-2461
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Craven RA, Singletary N, Bosken L.  et al.  Use of bilevel positive airway pressure in out-of-hospital patients.  Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7:1065-1068
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cross AM, Cameron P, Kierce M, Ragg M, Kelly AM. Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure.  Emerg Med J. 2003;20:531-534
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sharon A, Shpirer I, Kaluski E.  et al.  High-dose intravenous isosorbide-dinitrate is safer and better than Bi-PAP ventilation combined with conventional treatment for severe pulmonary edema.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:832-837
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lin M, Chiang HT. The efficacy of early continuous positive airway pressure therapy in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  J Formos Med Assoc. 1991;90:736-743
PubMed
Bollaert PE, Sauder PH, Girard F.  et al.  Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs proportional assist ventilation (PAV) for noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE).  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:(suppl 8)  A387
Link to Article
Liesching TN, Cromier K, Nelson D, Short K, Sucov A, Hill NS. Bilevel noninvasive ventilation vs continuous positive airway pressure to treat acute pulmonary edema.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:(suppl 7)  A864
Mackay CA, Mackay TW, Barr K.  et al.  Randomized controlled trial of CPAP vs conventional therapy in acute pulmonary edema.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161:(suppl 3)  A416
Hao CX, Luo XR, Liu YM. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure by basal face mask.  Acta Academiae Medicinae Jiangxi. 2002;42:48-50
Moritz F, Benichou J, Vanheste M.  et al.  Boussignac continuous positive airway pressure device in the emergency care of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomized pilot study.  Eur J Emerg Med. 2003;10:204-208
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Takeda S, Takano T, Oqawa R. The effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on plasma endothelin-1 concentrations in patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Anesth Analg. 1997;84:1091-1096
PubMed
Park M, Lorenzi-Filho G, Feltrim MI.  et al.  Oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure, or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001;76:221-230
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kelly CA, Newby DE, McDonagh TA.  et al.  Randomised controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure and standard oxygen therapy in acute pulmonary oedema.  Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1379-1386
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Crane SD, Elliott MW, Gilligan P, Richards K, Gray AJ. Randomised controlled comparison of continuous positive airways pressure, bilevel non-invasive ventilation, and standard treatment in emergency department in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.  Emerg Med J. 2004;21:155-161
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Levitt MA. A prospective, randomized trial of BIPAP in severe acute congestive heart failure.  J Emerg Med. 2001;21:363-369
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nava S, Carbone G, Dibatista N.  et al.  Noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168:1432-1437
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mehta S, Jay GD, Woolard RH.  et al.  Randomized, prospective trial of bilevel vs continuous positive airway pressure in acute pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 1997;25:620-628
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bellone A, Monari A, Cortellaro F, Vettorello M, Arlati S, Coen D. Myocardial infarction rate in acute pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1860-1865
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bellone A, Vettorello M, Monari A, Cortellaro F, Coen D. Noninvasive pressure support ventilation vs continuous positive airway pressure in acute hypercapnic pulmonary edema.  Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:807-811
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pang D, Keenan SP, Cook DJ, Sibbald WJ. The effect of positive pressure airway support on mortality and need for intubation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a systematic review.  Chest. 1998;114:1185-1192
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rusterholtz T, Kempf J, Berton C.  et al.  Noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) with face mask in patients with acute pulmonary edema (ACPE).  Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:21-28
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nieminen MS, Bohm M, Cowie MR.  et al.  Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure.  Eur Heart J. 2005;26:384-416
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Masip J, Peña C, Figueras J, Páez J, Sánchez B, Cancio B. Hypertensive acute pulmonary edema.  Eur J Heart Fail. 2005;4:(suppl 1)  11
Masip J, Páez J, Betbesé AJ, Vecilla F. Noninvasive ventilation for pulmonary edema in emergency room.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:1072-1073
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Trial Selection
Graphic Jump Location
Figure 2. Effects of Noninvasive Ventilation on Death
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers are proportional to the amount of data contributed by each trial.

Figure 3. Effects of Noninvasive Ventilation on Need to Intubate
Graphic Jump Location
Figure 4. Effects of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Noninvasive Pressure Support Ventilation
Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable. Randomized Studies Analyzing Noninvasive Ventilation

References

Brochard L, Mancebo J, Wysocki M.  et al.  Noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  N Engl J Med. 1995;333:817-822
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ram FS, Picot J, Lightowler J, Wedzicha JA. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for treatment of respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;((3)):CD004104
PubMed
Räsänen J, Heikklä J, Downs J, Nikki P, Väisänen I, Viitanen A. Continuous positive airway pressure by face mask in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:296-300
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bersten AD, Holt AW, Vedig AE, Skowronski GA, Baggoley CJ. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask.  N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1825-1830
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lin M, Yang YF, Chiang HT, Chang MS, Chiang BN, Cheitlin MD. Reappraisal of continuous positive airway pressure therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Chest. 1995;107:1379-1386
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Takeda S, Nejima J, Takano T.  et al.  Effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on pulmonary edema complicating acute myocardial infarction.  Jpn Circ J. 1998;62:553-558
PubMed   |  Link to Article
L'Her E, Duquesne F, Girou E.  et al.  Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in elderly cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients.  Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:882-888
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Park M, Sangean MC, Volpe MC.  et al.  Randomized, prospective trial of oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure by face mask in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2407-2415
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Masip J, Betbesé AJ, Páez J.  et al.  Non-invasive pressure support ventilation versus conventional oxygen therapy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized study.  Lancet. 2000;356:2126-2132
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Antonelli M, Conti G, Moro ML.  et al.  Predictors of failure of noninvasive positive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.  Intensive Care Med. 2001;27:1718-1728
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burns KE, Sinuff T, Adhhikari NK.  et al.  Bilevel noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure.  Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1477-1483
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wysocki M. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: better than continuous positive airway pressure?  Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:1-2
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mehta S, Nava S. Mask ventilation and cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:757-759
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D.  et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?  Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias.  JAMA. 1995;273:408-412
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.  BMJ. 1997;315:629-634
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.  Biometrics. 1994;50:1088-1099
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Vaisanen IT, Rasanen J. Continuous positive airway pressure and supplemental oxygen in the treatment of cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Chest. 1987;92:481-485
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chadda K, Annane D, Hart N.  et al.  Cardiac and respiratory effects of continuous positive airway pressure and noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiac pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 2002;30:2457-2461
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Craven RA, Singletary N, Bosken L.  et al.  Use of bilevel positive airway pressure in out-of-hospital patients.  Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7:1065-1068
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cross AM, Cameron P, Kierce M, Ragg M, Kelly AM. Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure.  Emerg Med J. 2003;20:531-534
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sharon A, Shpirer I, Kaluski E.  et al.  High-dose intravenous isosorbide-dinitrate is safer and better than Bi-PAP ventilation combined with conventional treatment for severe pulmonary edema.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:832-837
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lin M, Chiang HT. The efficacy of early continuous positive airway pressure therapy in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  J Formos Med Assoc. 1991;90:736-743
PubMed
Bollaert PE, Sauder PH, Girard F.  et al.  Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs proportional assist ventilation (PAV) for noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE).  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:(suppl 8)  A387
Link to Article
Liesching TN, Cromier K, Nelson D, Short K, Sucov A, Hill NS. Bilevel noninvasive ventilation vs continuous positive airway pressure to treat acute pulmonary edema.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:(suppl 7)  A864
Mackay CA, Mackay TW, Barr K.  et al.  Randomized controlled trial of CPAP vs conventional therapy in acute pulmonary edema.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161:(suppl 3)  A416
Hao CX, Luo XR, Liu YM. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure by basal face mask.  Acta Academiae Medicinae Jiangxi. 2002;42:48-50
Moritz F, Benichou J, Vanheste M.  et al.  Boussignac continuous positive airway pressure device in the emergency care of acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomized pilot study.  Eur J Emerg Med. 2003;10:204-208
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Takeda S, Takano T, Oqawa R. The effect of nasal continuous positive airway pressure on plasma endothelin-1 concentrations in patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Anesth Analg. 1997;84:1091-1096
PubMed
Park M, Lorenzi-Filho G, Feltrim MI.  et al.  Oxygen therapy, continuous positive airway pressure, or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Arq Bras Cardiol. 2001;76:221-230
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kelly CA, Newby DE, McDonagh TA.  et al.  Randomised controlled trial of continuous positive airway pressure and standard oxygen therapy in acute pulmonary oedema.  Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1379-1386
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Crane SD, Elliott MW, Gilligan P, Richards K, Gray AJ. Randomised controlled comparison of continuous positive airways pressure, bilevel non-invasive ventilation, and standard treatment in emergency department in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.  Emerg Med J. 2004;21:155-161
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Levitt MA. A prospective, randomized trial of BIPAP in severe acute congestive heart failure.  J Emerg Med. 2001;21:363-369
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nava S, Carbone G, Dibatista N.  et al.  Noninvasive ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168:1432-1437
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mehta S, Jay GD, Woolard RH.  et al.  Randomized, prospective trial of bilevel vs continuous positive airway pressure in acute pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 1997;25:620-628
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bellone A, Monari A, Cortellaro F, Vettorello M, Arlati S, Coen D. Myocardial infarction rate in acute pulmonary edema.  Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1860-1865
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bellone A, Vettorello M, Monari A, Cortellaro F, Coen D. Noninvasive pressure support ventilation vs continuous positive airway pressure in acute hypercapnic pulmonary edema.  Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:807-811
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pang D, Keenan SP, Cook DJ, Sibbald WJ. The effect of positive pressure airway support on mortality and need for intubation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a systematic review.  Chest. 1998;114:1185-1192
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rusterholtz T, Kempf J, Berton C.  et al.  Noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) with face mask in patients with acute pulmonary edema (ACPE).  Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:21-28
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Nieminen MS, Bohm M, Cowie MR.  et al.  Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure.  Eur Heart J. 2005;26:384-416
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Masip J, Peña C, Figueras J, Páez J, Sánchez B, Cancio B. Hypertensive acute pulmonary edema.  Eur J Heart Fail. 2005;4:(suppl 1)  11
Masip J, Páez J, Betbesé AJ, Vecilla F. Noninvasive ventilation for pulmonary edema in emergency room.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:1072-1073
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Letters

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 186

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections