from a European Respiratory Society task force.
“Our recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide the management of chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients aimed at improving patient outcomes,” wroteof Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, and coauthors. The guideline was published in the .
To provide insight into the clinical application of LTH-NIV, the European Respiratory Society convened a task force of 20 clinicians, methodologists, and experts. Their four recommendations were developed based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.
The first recommendation was to use LTH-NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD. Though an analysis of randomized, controlled trials showed little effect on mortality or hospitalizations, pooled analyses showed that NIV may decrease dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, –0.51; 95% confidence interval, –0.06 to –0.95) and increase health-related quality of life (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, –0.01 to 0.98).
The second was to use LTH-NIV in patients with COPD following a life-threatening episode of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring acute NIV, if hypercapnia persists. Though it was not associated with a reduction in mortality (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.25), it was found to potentially reduce exacerbations (SMD, 0.19; 95% CI, –0.40 to 0.01) and hospitalizations (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.30-1.24).
The third was to titrate LTH-NIV to normalize or reduce PaCO2 levels in patients with COPD. While this recommendation was issued with a very low certainty of evidence, it was driven by the “minimal potential harms of targeted PaCO2 reduction.”
The fourth was to use fixed pressure support mode as first-choice ventilator mode in patients with COPD using LTH-NIV. The six trials on this subject did not provide insight into long-term outcomes, nor were there significant improvements seen in health-related quality of life, sleep quality, or exercise tolerance. As such, it was also issued with a very low certainty of evidence.
The authors acknowledged all four recommendations as weak and conditional, “due to limitations in the certainty of the available evidence.” As such, they noted that their recommendations “require consideration of individual preferences, resource considerations, technical expertise, and clinical circumstances prior to implementation in clinical practice.”
The authors reported numerous disclosures, including receiving grants and personal fees from various medical supply companies.
SOURCE: Ergan B et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Aug 29. .