Abstract
Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) provides effective ventilatory support in patients with nocturnal hypoventilation. Nasal pressure support ventilation (NPSV), which only provides ventilation in response to patient triggering, may also be effective, simpler, and cheaper, but has not been evaluated. NIPPV and NPSV were compared in 12 patients with nocturnal hypoventilation, requiring domiciliary ventilatory support. The patients were studied on three consecutive nights, in random order: a control night without ventilation and a night on each mode of ventilatory support using the bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilator. Both NIPPV and NPSV significantly increased mean arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) compared to the control night (NIPPV mean increase 4.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 6.1, NPSV 4.4%; CI 2.1 to 6.6) with no significant difference between the two modes. The percentage of the study night spent below 90% SaO2 was significantly reduced by both ventilator modes compared to the control night (median reduction on NIPPV 37%; CI -54 to -10, reduction on NPSV 31%; CI -53 to -9, with no significant difference between NPSV and NIPPV. NPSV was as effective as NIPPV in patients with nocturnal hypoventilation, which suggests that these patients are able to trigger the ventilator adequately. The lower cost of NPSV will make it accessible to more patients with chronic lung disease.
