PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Sandip Banerjee AU - Marcus Pittman AU - Rebecca Chadwick AU - Atul Gulati AU - Masood Ali AU - Michael Davies AU - Nick Oscroft AU - Tim Quinnell AU - Phillipa Lawson AU - John Shneerson AU - Ian Smith TI - Volume assured pressure support ventilation for chronic ventilatory failure in COPD DP - 2012 Sep 01 TA - European Respiratory Journal PG - P2068 VI - 40 IP - Suppl 56 4099 - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl_56/P2068.short 4100 - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl_56/P2068.full SO - Eur Respir J2012 Sep 01; 40 AB - Introduction & MethodsNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) is used to treat chronic ventilatory failure complicating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomised prospective study compared the effectiveness of a volume assured pressure support ventilator (VAPS - iVAPS, Resmed) with a pressure controlled ventilator (PCV - NIPPY 3, B&D Electromedical) in this patient group.ResultsForty subjects (19 male) were recruited with these demographics (mean & standard deviation): age 66.9 (8.2) years; BMI 28.2 (7.0); smoking 46.5 (31.3) pack years; FEV1 27 (10.2) % predicted. They were randomised 20 to each treatment limb and at baseline there were no differences between the two groups.View this table:Outcomes pre-treatment and at 1-month (p values compared to pre-treatment values)Mean hours of use between VAPS and PCV were not significantly different [6.0 (+/-2.7) vs 5.9 (+/-2.4) hours respectively).There was a trend towards shorter time to initiate VAPS compared to PCV (3.4 vs 4.7 days respectively, p=0.071). During the trial period 2 patients from each arm died.ConclusionIn patients with COPD and chronic ventilatory failure, VAPS achieves similar improvements in overnight oximetry and daytime PaCO2 compared to PCV. VAPS is a well tolerated and effective treatment for chronic ventilatory failure in this patient group. A longitudinal trial investigating survival may now be warranted.