Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Comparison of two different modes for noninvasive mechanical ventilation in chronic respiratory failure: volume versus pressure controlled device

B Schonhofer, M Sonneborn, P Haidl, H Bohrer, D Kohler
European Respiratory Journal 1997 10: 184-191; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.97.10010184
B Schonhofer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M Sonneborn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P Haidl
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H Bohrer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D Kohler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The most commonly used mode of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NMV) is volume-controlled intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV). Pressure support ventilation has recently become increasingly popular, but its merits have not been clearly defined. In an open, nonrandomized follow-up study, we evaluated two modes of NMV, volume-controlled (IPPV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) over 6 months in 30 consecutive patients (24 males and 6 females, aged 49 +/- 19 yrs) with chronic respiratory failure (CRF). The baseline assessments comprised both physiological and subjective data. In all cases, nasal IPPV was initially administered for 1 month, followed by a second month of nasal PCV. Thereafter, responders or nonresponders to PCV were defined according to the patients' subjective symptom score and/or the recurrence of hypercapnia. During the IPPV phase, in all but two patients the subjective and objective parameters improved significantly. During the following 1 month PCV phase, stabilization was maintained in 18 patients ("responders"), while 10 patients were defined as "nonresponders". In nonresponders, hypercapnia increased (arterial carbon dioxide tension (Pa,CO2): 5.7 +/- 0.4 to 6.6 +/- 0.5 kPa; p < 0.05) and symptom scores decreased. Compared with responders, nonresponders had a lower mean nocturnal arterial oxygen saturation (Sa,O2) (p < 0.05) and a higher daytime Pa,CO2 (p < 0.05) at baseline. We con clude that the majority of patients suffering from chronic respiratory failure who are initially satisfactorily ventilated with intermittent positive pressure ventilation may also be adequately maintained with pressure-controlled ventilation. However, there is a subgroup with more severe chronic respiratory failure at baseline, in whom pressure-controlled ventilation is inadequate. After 4 weeks of treatment with pressure-controlled ventilation, the subjective scores and the arterial carbon dioxide tension values reliably distinguished between long-term responders and nonresponders to pressure-controlled ventilation.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 10 Issue 1 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparison of two different modes for noninvasive mechanical ventilation in chronic respiratory failure: volume versus pressure controlled device
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Comparison of two different modes for noninvasive mechanical ventilation in chronic respiratory failure: volume versus pressure controlled device
B Schonhofer, M Sonneborn, P Haidl, H Bohrer, D Kohler
European Respiratory Journal Jan 1997, 10 (1) 184-191; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.97.10010184

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Comparison of two different modes for noninvasive mechanical ventilation in chronic respiratory failure: volume versus pressure controlled device
B Schonhofer, M Sonneborn, P Haidl, H Bohrer, D Kohler
European Respiratory Journal Jan 1997, 10 (1) 184-191; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.97.10010184
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Lung volume reduction surgery versus conservative treatment in severe emphysema
  • Inhaled isotonic alkaline versus saline solution and radioaerosol clearance in chronic cough
  • Aerosol delivery from spacers in wheezy infants: a daily life study
Show more Clinical Trial

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society