Abstract
Background
Non-invasive ventilation or NIV has emerged as a crucial intervention in the management of respiratory failure in the intensive care unit or ICU. It offers a less invasive alternative to mechanical ventilation and may help avoid complications related to intubation. The three most commonly used NIV techniques like BiPAP or Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure, CPAP or Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and High-Flow Nasal Cannula or HFNC have shown varied efficacy across different patient populations and etiologies of respiratory failure.
Aim
The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of BiPAP, CPAP, and HFNC in preventing invasive mechanical ventilation or IMV and improving clinical results among ICU patients with acute or chronic respiratory failure.
Methods
This prospective study included 240 ICU patients categorized into three groups based on the NIV modality used: BiPAP, CPAP, or HFNC. Patients were monitored for progression to invasive ventilation, ICU length of stay, mortality, and complications associated with non-invasive methods. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes among the three groups.
Results
BiPAP showed the highest efficacy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, CPAP was most beneficial in cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and HFNC proved effective in hypoxemic respiratory failure such as pneumonia and early acute respiratory distress syndrome or ARDS. All modalities significantly reduced the need for IMV, lowered ICU mortality, and shortened the duration of ICU stay compared to conventional oxygen therapy.
Conclusion
All three non-invasive ventilation techniques offer significant benefits when applied in appropriate clinical contexts. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each method and tailoring their use to individual patient needs can result in better outcomes, reduced intubation rates, and decreased healthcare burdens in critical care settings.