Non-invasive negative and positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of acute on chronic respiratory failure

Objective To investigate in clinical practice the role of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory failure on chronic respiratory disorders.Design An 18 months prospective cohort study.Setting A specialised respiratory intensive care unit in a university-affiliated hospital.Patients A total of 258 consecutive patients with acute respiratory failure on chronic respiratory disorders.Interventions Criteria for starting non-invasive mechanical ventilation and for endotracheal intubation were predefined. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation was provided by positive pressure (NPPV) ventilators or iron lung (NPV).Results The main characteristics of patients (70% with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) on admission were (mean, SD or median, 25th–75th centiles): pH 7.29 (0.07), PaCO₂ 83 mm Hg (19), PaO₂/FiO₂ 198 (77), APACHE II score 19 (15–24). Among the 258 patients, 200 (77%) were treated exclusively with non-invasive mechanical ventilation (40% with NPV, 23% with NPPV, and 14% with the sequential use of both), and 35 (14%) with invasive mechanical ventilation. In patients in whom NPV or NPPV failed, the sequential use of the alternative non-invasive ventilatory technique allowed a significant reduction in the failure of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (from 23.4 to 8.8%, p=0.002, and from 25.3 to 5%, p=0.0001, respectively). In patients as a whole, the hospital mortality (21%) was lower than that estimated by APACHE II score (28%).Conclusions Using NPV and NPPV it was possible in clinical practice to avoid endotracheal intubation in the large majority of unselected patients with acute respiratory failure on chronic respiratory disorders needing ventilatory support. The sequential use of both modalities may increase further the effectiveness of non-invasive mechanical ventilation.Electronic Supplementary Material Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-2145-9     

无创正压通气对不同轻重COPD呼吸衰竭患者的治疗效果研究

目的：观察无创正压通气在不同轻重慢性阻塞性肺病伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭中的治疗作用，为更好的选择无创正压通气的临床应用适应证提供指导。方法：用双水平无创正压呼吸机对78例慢性阻塞性肺病伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者经口鼻面罩辅助通气，动态观察无创正压通气治疗前和治疗后2h，1d，2d，3d，6d，8d动脉血气变化。根据动脉血气结果，比较分析病情程度不同轻重患者对无创正压通气治疗的反应。结果：经无创正压通气治疗后各组PaO2均有不同程度升高，PaCO2明显降低。PaO2的改善以二氧化碳中度升高组（PaCO2 7.98～10．6mmHg）最为明显，而PaCO2的改善尤以极重度二氧化碳潴留组患者（PaCO2〉13.3kPa）下降比率最大。结论：无创正压通气对COPD伴Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭疗效确切，各组呼吸衰竭患者均能从无创正压通气治疗中获益，并以极重度CO2潴留组患者获益最大。     

Medical emergency team and non-invasive ventilation outside ICU for acute respiratory failure

Objective  To report data about “real-life” treatments with non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF), managed outside intensive care units by anaesthesiologists acting as a medical emergency team. Design  Observational study; prospectively collected data over a 6-month period in a single centre. Setting  Non-intensive wards in a University Hospital with 1,100 beds. Patients  Consecutive patients with ARF for whom a ventilatory support was indicated but tracheal intubation was not appropriated or immediately needed. Interventions  None. Measurements and results  Patient’s characteristics, safety data, short-term outcome and organizational aspects of 129 consecutive treatments were collected. The overall success rate was 77.5%, while 10.1% were intubated and 12.4% died (all of them were “do not attempt resuscitation” patients). The incidence of treatment failure varied greatly among different diseases. Complications were limited to nasal decubitus (5%), failure to accomplish the prescribed ventilatory program (12%), malfunction of the ventilator (2%) and excessive air leaks from face mask (2%) with no consequences for patients. Three patients became intolerant to NIV. The work-load for the MET was high but sustainable: on average NIV was applied to a new case every 34 h and more than three patients were simultaneously treated. Conclusions  Under the supervision of a MET, in our institution NIV could be applied in a wide variety of settings, outside the ICU, with a high success rate and with few complications. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. This article is discussed in the editorial available at: doi:.     

无创正压通气治疗免疫抑制合并急性呼吸衰竭患者的临床分析

目的 探讨免疫抑制(ICH)合并急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)患者接受无创正压通气(NPPV)的疗效及影响NPPV成功的因素。方法 选择2008年3月至2011年3月在本院呼吸重症监护病房(RICU)应用NPPV治疗的ICH合并ARF患者,记录其各项临床资料;采用单因素Logistic回归分析NPPV治疗成功的独立影响因素;按临床转归进行免疫状态评估。结果 33例ICH合并ARF患者初始均接受NPPV治疗;其中9例(27.3％)NPPV失败后改用有创机械通气(IMV,失败组),最终全部死亡;24例(72.7％)仅用NPPV并成功（成功组）,最终死亡7例(29.2％),两组间病死率比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01)。除成功组简化急性生理学评分Ⅱ (SAPS Ⅱ,分)显著低于失败组外(33±9比43±5,P＜0.01),两组其他临床资料比较差异无统计学意义。Logistic回归分析显示,SAPS Ⅱ是NPPV治疗成功的独立影响因素[优势比(OR)=0.83,95％可信区间(95％CI)0.709～0.964,P＜0.05],且SAPS Ⅱ≥38分是NPPV失败的高危因素[受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积为0.73]。另外,生存组肺损伤评分(LIS,分)显著低于死亡组(1.95±0.48比2.57±0.52,P＜0.01),CD3+、CD8+T淋巴细胞亚群均高于死亡组(CD3+:0.73±0.16比0.41±0.20;CD8+:0.51±0.18比0.21±0.15,均P＜0.01)。结论 NPPV可用于ICH肺部感染合并ARF的早期治疗,以SAPS Ⅱ ＜38分作为NPPV治疗的选择时机,能有效改善缺氧,避免IMV相关并发症,利于ICH的预后;CD3+、CD8+及LIS评分可以作为评价预后的指标。     

口咽置管行无创性机械通气治疗Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的临床效果分析

目的 通过解除上呼吸道梗阻,探讨更有效地纠正慢性阻塞性肺病所致Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的新方法。方法 慢性阻塞性肺病所致Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者３０例,随机分为两组,一组单纯采用经口鼻面罩行呼吸机通气治疗,另一组首先放置口咽管,建立口咽气道,然后在经口鼻面罩行同辅助通气治疗。结果 结果显示建立口咽气道的明显优于单纯ＢｉＰＡＰ机械通气,可更有效地纠正呼吸衰竭,促进呼吸肌的恢复。结论 口咽气道结合呼吸机辅助通气,既能的效     

Time of non-invasive ventilation

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a safe, versatile and effective technique that can avert side effects and complications associated with endotracheal intubation. The success of NIV relies on several factors, including the type and severity of acute respiratory failure, the underlying disease, the location of treatment, and the experience of the team. The time factor is also important. NIV is primarily used to avert the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with early-stage acute respiratory failure and post-extubation respiratory failure. It can also be used as an alternative to invasive ventilation at a more advanced stage of acute respiratory failure or to facilitate the process of weaning from mechanical ventilation. NIV has been used to prevent development of acute respiratory failure or post-extubation respiratory failure. The number of days of NIV and hours of daily use differ, depending on the severity and course of the acute respiratory failure and the timing of application. In this review article, we analyse, compare and discuss the results of studies in which NIV was applied at various times during the evolution of acute respiratory failure.     

无创正压通气治疗COPD急性加重导致高碳酸血症的临床研究

目的对比无创正压通气（NPPV）对慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）急性加重导致轻中度高碳酸血症与重度高碳酸血症的疗效。方法对比入选COPD急性加重导致轻中度高碳酸血症（PaCO2〈80mmHg,1mmHg=0.133kPa）组患者和重度高碳酸血症（PaCO2〉80mmHg）组患者NPPV2h后pH值和PaCO2的变化、24h后pH值恢复正常的人数、总的NPPV治疗时间和住院天数。结果轻中度高碳酸血症组44人,重度高碳酸血症组42人。轻中度高碳酸血症组和重度高碳酸血症组相对比,NPPV2h后pH值（分别为0.04±0.01和0.06±0.03,P=0.63）和PaCO2[分别为（14.3±7.4）mmHg和（18.1±11.2）mmHg,P=0.34]的改善程度相似。对比两组患者NPPV24h后pH值恢复正常比率（分别为65.9%和59.5%,P=0.65）、NPPV应用时间[分别为（103±8.1）h和（106±6.6）h,P=0.74]、住院天数[分别为（13±2.7）d和（15±4.1）d,P=0.53]及NPPV失败率（分别为13.6%和19.0%,P=0.56）也无差异。结论 NPPV治疗对COPD急性加重导致重度高碳酸血症的患者是有效的。     

Sequential use of noninvasive pressure support ventilation for acute exacerbations of COPD

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV) in acute decompensation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by means of a bi-level positive airway pressure support system (BiPAP) in a sequential mode with medical therapy alone; to assess the short-term physiologic effects of the device on gas exchange; and to compare patients successfully ventilated with NIPSV with those in whom NIPSV failed. Design: A prospective case series with historically matched control study. Setting: A general intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. Patients: We evaluated the efficacy of administration of NIPSV in 42 COPD patients and compared this with standard treatment in 42 matched historical control COPD patients. Interventions: NIPSV was performed in a sequential mode, i. e., BiPAP in the spontaneous mode was used for at least 30 min every 3 h. Between periods of ventilation, patients could be systematically returned to BiPAP when the arterial oxygen saturation was < 0.85 or when the respiratory rate was > 30 breaths/min. Measurements and results: Success rate, mortality, duration of ventilatory assistance, and length of ICU stay were recorded. Eleven of the 42 patients (26 %) in the NIPSV group needed tracheal intubation compared with 30 of the 42 control patients (71 %). The 31 patients in whom NIPSV was successful were ventilated for a mean of 6 ± 3 days. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different in the treated versus the control group, but the duration of ventilatory assistance (7 ± 4 days vs 15 ± 10 days, p < 0.01) and the length of ICU stay (9 ± 4 days vs 21 ± 12, p < 0.01) were both shortened by NIPSV. BiPAP was effective in correcting gas exchange abnormalities. The pH values, measured after 45 min of BiPAP with optimal settings, in the success (7.38 ± 0.04) and failure (7.28 ± 0.04) patients were significantly different (p < 0.05). Conclusions: NIPSV, performed with a sequential mode, may be used in the management of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Received: 10 February 1997 Accepted: 14 July 1997     

COPD合并肺性脑病无创正压通气治疗的护理

目的:观察慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)合并肺性脑病无创正压通气(NIPPV)治疗及护理的疗效。方法:对68例COPD合并肺性脑病患者在常规治疗基础上给予双水平无创正压通气(BiPAP)治疗,观察治疗前后患者的临床症状、动脉血气指标的变化。结果:39例6 h内意识转为清楚,12例6～12 h意识转为清楚,7例13～24 h意识转为清楚。58例治疗后动脉血气指标较治疗前改善(P<0.05),10例疗效不佳改行有创机械通气。结论:NIPPV治疗COPD并肺性脑病,能快速缓解症状,纠正呼吸衰竭,同时配合有效的护理措施,疗效肯定,值得临床推广应用。     

两种无创通气模式治疗急性心源性肺水肿疗效比较

目的 通过观察两种无创通气模式成比例辅助通气(PAV)和双水平气道正压通气(BiPAP)对急性心源性肺水肿(ACPE)患者的通气反应、血流动力学等方面的变化规律,比较两者的治疗效果.方法 选取广州医学院附属第二医院急诊科2008年5月至2009年4月收治的32例急性心源性肺水肿患者经常规治疗(强心、利尿、扩管、吸氧)0.5h无显效后,随机分成对照组、BiPAP组、PAV组.对照组继续按常规处理,BiPAP组、PAV组分别行常规治疗+BiPAP通气和常规治疗+ PAV通气,检测三组患者治疗前和治疗后1h的血气分析、血压、心率、呼吸频率(RR)、氧合指数、呼吸困难缓解时间、视觉模拟评分(VAS评分)、辅助呼吸肌动用评分、气道峰压等指标,对比三种治疗方法在治疗前后各项指标的变化.结果 经治疗1h后,三组间的RR、动脉血氧分压( Pa02)和氧合指数均较治疗前明显改善(P＜0.05),其中BiPAP组与PAV组较对照组的氧合指数、Pa02均升高(P＜0.05)、RR减低(P＜0.05);BiPAP组与PAV组治疗后呼吸困难缓解的时间较对照组明显缩短(P＜0.05),治疗1h后PAV组患者的气道峰压较BiPAP组为低,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05),PAV组患者的舒适度相关指标(VAS评分、辅助呼吸肌动用评分)均较BiPAP组为低,差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 无创PAV、BiPAP对改善急性心源性肺水肿患者氧合和缓解呼吸困难具有显著的临床疗效;PAV与BiPAP对ACPE患者的疗效相仿;PAV的同步性、舒适性较BiPAP好,气道峰压较低,更易被患者接受.     

无创通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病并发Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的临床研究

目的 探讨应用无创双水平正压通气(BiPAP)呼吸机治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)并发Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的临床应用价值.方法 将56例COPD急性加重并发Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者随机分为观察组和对照组,观察组应用BiPAP+常规综合治疗,对照组常规综合治疗.观察2组治疗后血气分析结果、呼吸频率、心率、辅助呼吸肌动用评分、气管插管率、病死率.结果 观察组治疗后PO2明显升高,PCO2明显降低,pH明显改善,呼吸频率、心率、辅助呼吸肌动用评分下降;对照组各指标无改善.观察组气管插管率、住院病死率与对照组相比显著降低,差异均有统计学意义(均P＜0.05).结论 对COPD并发Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭患者,在常规药物治疗的基础上,给予BiPAP呼吸机辅助通气治疗可以提高疗效,缓解呼吸肌疲劳,降低气管插管率及病死率.     

Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure

Noninvasive ventilation refers to any form of ventilatory support applied without the use of an endotracheal tube. It offers the potential to provide primary treatment for acute respiratory failure while avoiding complications associated with mechanical ventilation with endotracheal intubation. Noninvasive ventilation has been most commonly studied in hypercapnic respiratory failure. A review of randomized, controlled studies shows mixed results and methodologic limitations affect the interpretation of current evidence. Patient selection is clearly the most important issue in considering noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Unfortunately, patients who benefit from noninvasive ventilation represent only a minority of the total group with any one disease, and thus it is difficult to make broad conclusions concerning applicability of this treatment modality. Future studies are needed to focus on determining the specific patient populations who will benefit the most, evaluating the optimal ventilatory mode and mask for providing noninvasive ventilation, and clarifying its impact on clinical outcomes. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

无创正压通气在急性肺水肿治疗中的应用价值

目的 研究无创正压通气(BiPAP)对急性肺水肿患者心率(HR)、呼吸频率(RR)及动脉血气的影响.方法 将58例急性肺水肿患者随机分为两组,对照组(29例)给予吸氧、强心、利尿、扩血管等常规治疗,干预组(29例)在上述常规治疗的基础上,加用BiPAP治疗.4h后,比较两组患者的HR、RR、动脉血气变化,出院时统计患者住院时间及行有创通气的发生率.结果 干预组治疗前HR、RR、氧饱和度(SaO2)和氧分压(PaO2)分别为(124±12)次/min、(37±5)次/min、(81.4±5.4)％和(53.2±5.4)mmHg,治疗后上述4项指标均有明显改善,HR、RR、SaO2和PaO2分别为(83±6)次/min(t =5.372,P＜ 0.01)、(19±8)次/min(t=4.285,P＜0.01)、(94.1±4.2)％(t=2.731,P ＜0.05)和(89.1±8.5)mm Hg(t=5.763,P＜0.01).对照组治疗前HR、RR、SaO2和PaO2分别为(123±11)次/min、(36±7)次/min、(81.8±5.7)％和(53.5±4.6)mm Hg,治疗后上述4项指标亦有明显改善,HR、RR、SaO2和PaO2分别为(95±8)次/min(t=3.459,P＜0.01)、(24±6)次/min(t =3.127,P＜0.01)、(88.3±4.5)％(t=2.314,P＜0.05)和(72.8 ±9.5)mm Hg(t=3.756,P＜0.01).干预组治疗后HR、RR、SaO2及PaO2较对照组改善更明显(t值分别为2.311、2.115、2.176、2.982,P＜0.05或P＜0.01);干预组住院时间(9±3)d明显短于对照组[(15±4)d,t=3.763,P＜0.01];干预组有创通气的发生率(6.89％)亦低于对照组(17.24％),但差异尚无统计学意义(x2=1.642,P＞0.05).结论 BiPAP能有效改善急性肺水肿患者HR、RR及血气分析指标,缩短住院时间,降低有创通气的发生率,具有较好的临床应用价值.     

家庭氧疗加无创通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病稳定期及其对运动耐量的影响

目的 观察家庭氧疗加无创通气对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)稳定期的治疗效果及对运动耐量的影响.方法 采用自身对照方法,将患者治疗前后及治疗期间的血气分析及6 min步行实验结果进行对比观察.结果 10例完成疗程的患者治疗前后血气分析及6 min步行实验结果差异均有统计学意义(均P＜0.05).结论 COPD稳定期实施家庭氧疗及无创通气治疗安全可行,效果较好.     

无创正压通气治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭临床分析

目的:评价无创正压通气对慢性阻塞性肺疾病引起的呼吸衰竭的治疗价值。方法:回顾性分析35例伴严重Ⅱ型呼吸衰竭的慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性发作期患者的临床资料。结果:无创正压通气3h可迅速改善患者的血气(P<0.05),24～72h可获进一步改善(P<0.01)。治疗成功率88.6%。结论:无创正压通气对以高二氧化碳血症为主要表现的慢性阻塞性肺部疾病并重度呼吸衰竭的患者有良好的治疗效果,对于二氧化碳的排出效果明显。     

无创正压通气治疗急性呼吸衰竭失败的相关因素探讨

目的　研究无创正压通气 (NPPV)治疗急性呼吸衰竭 (ARF)失败的相关因素 ,探讨NPPV治疗失败需转换为有创通气的时机。方法　对 74例由各种病因所致ARF接受NPPV治疗患者根据治疗结果分为NPPV失败组和NPPV成功组 ,比较两组患者各项指标变化 ,分析与NPPV治疗失败相关的因素。结果　NPPV治疗失败 2 2例 (2 9 7% )。入院初NPPV失败组的呼吸频率 (RR)和心率 (HR)增快 ,动脉血二氧化碳分压 (PaCO2 )升高和pH下降 ,与NPPV成功组比较差异有显著性 (P <0 0 5 )。Logistic回归分析显示 ,RR >30次 /min ,HR >130次 /min ,PaCO2 >6 0mmHg ,pH <7 30是影响NPPV失败的相关因素。NPPV成功组治疗后 1～ 6h动脉血氧分压 (PaO2 )明显改善 ,与治疗前比较差异显著 (P <0 0 5 )。NPPV失败组治疗后 1～ 6h动脉血气与治疗前比较无明显改善。结论　ARF患者显著异常的RR、HR、PaCO2 和pH是与NPPV治疗失败相关的因素。NPPV治疗初期 (1～ 6h)动脉血气有无显著改善亦可作为预测NPPV治疗成功与否的指标。NPPV治疗失败时及时改用有创通气可降低病死率 ,改善预后。     

无创及有创正压通气治疗光气中毒致急性呼吸窘迫综合征的疗效比较

目的观察无创正压通气（NPPV）及有创正压通气（IPPV）治疗光气中毒致急性呼吸窘迫综合征（ARDS）的临床疗效。方法对皖北煤电集团总医院重症监护病房收治的9例光气中毒致ARDS患者,随机分别采用NPPV及IPPV治疗,比较两组患者的呼吸机使用时间、住院时间、镇静剂使用及并发症发生情况。结果 9例患者均康复出院。NPPV治疗组5例患者中,平均使用呼吸机时间76.5 h,平均住院时间13.8 d,均未使用镇静剂,均未发生机械通气相关并发症。IPPV治疗组4例患者中,平均使用呼吸机时间82.5 h,平均住院时间22.2 d,均需要使用镇静剂,有2例患者出现机械通气相关并发症。NPPV治疗组患者的住院时间及并发症明显短或少于IPPV治疗组。结论对光气中毒致ARDS早期患者,选择NPPV与IPPV治疗,都是有效可行的;两者相比,NPPV具有无创性,不需要使用镇静剂,能缩短住院时间,减少并发症的发生,疗效优于IPPV。     

无创通气早期治疗急性加重期慢性阻塞性肺疾病的时间窗探讨

目的 探讨无创正压通气(NIPPV)不同时机应用治疗急性加重期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(AECOPD)的价值和疗效.方法 将入选的133例AECOPD患者(7.30≤pH<7.35、45 mm Hg相似文献   

慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭患者有创与无创机械通气的疗效分析

目的比较慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭患者应用无创与有创机械通气的效果。方法慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重合并呼吸衰竭患者分为有创（35例）和无创机械通气组（37例）,回顾性分析两组患者治疗前后的临床资料。结果有创组机械通气2h后pH、动脉血氧分压（PaO2）、动脉血二氧化碳分压（PaCO：）、格拉斯哥昏迷评分（GCS）评分、心率、呼吸频率较治疗前均明显改善[分别为（7．35±0．05）、（7．23±0．02）,（92．4±14．5）、（51．3±9．4）mmHg,（56．0±7．7）、（82．6±8．1）mmHg,（10．5±1．1）、（8．5±1．2）分、（110±12）、（131±19）次／min,（26±4）、（35±8）次／min,P〈0．05或P〈0．01];而无创机械通气组仅PaO2、心率、呼吸频率较治疗前明显改善[分别为（78．6±8．8）、（53．1±8．9）mmHg,（110±24）、（128±23）次／min,（26±5）、（36±9）次／min,P均〈0．05],6h后pH、PaCO2、GCS才明显改善[分别为7．35±0．03、7．25±0．01,（59．0±6．3）、（79．8±7．0）mmHg,（10．6±2．0）、（8．5±2．5）分,P〈0．05或P〈0．01]。有创与无创机械通气组患者的ICU住院时间[分别为（15±4）、（14±4）d,t=1．102]、机械通气时间[分别为（168±25）、（170±23）d,t=1．214]、ICU病死率[分别为（22．8％（8／28）、21．6％（8／37）,x2=0．016]的比较差异无统计学意义（P均〉0．05）。结论有创机械通气组可以更快地改善病情,无创机械通气组部分患者需要气管插管,但两组在ICU住院时间、机械通气时间、ICU病死率无明显差别。     

慢性阻塞性肺疾病的家庭无创通气治疗

家庭无创通气（HMV）通常采用无创正压通气（NPPV）,已经明确HMV治疗神经肌肉障碍性疾病,胸廓畸形和睡眠呼吸障碍性疾病导致的呼吸衰竭可以延长生命,缓解症状和改善生活质量。HMV治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）的结论不尽一致,HMV治疗重度COPD患者可缓解呼吸困难,多数研究表明HMV可改善生活质量,减少COPD急性加重。近期的研究表明,HMV时采用较高吸气压力支持水平治疗伴二氧化碳潴留的稳定期COPD患者,可以改善气体交换,肺功能和呼吸困难,减少COPD急性加重,而且具有较好的治疗依从性。