Invasive versus non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure

Abstract Abstract: Background: This case-control study aimed to assess the efficacy and outcomes of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in managing respiratory failure caused by many conditions, with a specific focus on mortality reduction. Methods: The patients were allocated to either intermittent noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV). Clinical indicators, including respiratory rate (RR), blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and arterial blood gas parameters (pH, PaCO2, PaO2), were assessed before treatment and 24-hours post-treatment. Demographic data, such as age, gender, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcomes, were documented. Results: A total of 36 patients were included in the noninvasive ventilation (NIV) group, while 64 patients were assigned to receive invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV). The mean age in the NIV group was 6552, whereas it was 58.81 in the IPPV group (p= 0.0411). In the IPPV group, the average values of arterial blood gas parameters, including pH, and PCO2 were 7.37±0.14, 36.91±14.11, respectively. In the NIV group, the corresponding values were 7.39±0.10, 35.4±21.23. Following 24 hours of treatment, the clinical and ventilation parameters remained stable in the two groups. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.75±6.93 days in the IPPV group and 10.47±11.46 days in the NIV group (p<0.05). Conclusion: This study suggests that there were no significant distinctions observed between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) in terms of the management of respiratory failure, with both modalities demonstrating comparable success rates. Additionally, no notable variations were identified between NIPPV and IPPV regarding hospital stay, intubation rates, and associated complications.