Riassunto
Perchèe una tecnica relativamente più complicata e forse più dispendiosa dovrebbe essere meglio dell’intubazione? La risposta pensiamo sia semplice, e cioè che con la NIV riusciamo a evitare molti degli effetti collaterali prodotti dall’intubazione oroo naso-tracheale. Minimizzando queste complicanze riduciamo da un lato la degenza ospedaliera e dall’altro (ma quanto è difficile spiegare questo concetto ai nostri amministratori) i costi non solo ospedalieri, ma anche quelli “sociali”. Tutto questo naturalmente ha un prezzo umano da pagare, e cioè cambiare almeno in certi reparti la pratica usuale, imparare qualcosa di nuovo e infine dedicare forse più attenzione al paziente in termine di ore spese al letto del paziente, da parte del personale medico e paramedico.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsLetture cnsigliate
Chastre J (1994) Pneumonia in the ventilator-dependent patient. In: Tobin M (ed) Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. McGraw-Hill, New York
Craven DE, Kunches LM, Kilinsky V et al (1986) Risk factors for pneumonia and fatality in patients receiving continuous mechanical ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 133(5):792–796
Elpern EH, Scott MG, Petro L, Ries MH (1994) Pulmonary aspiration in mechanically ventilated patients with tracheostomies. Chest 105(2):563–566
Epstein SK (2006) Complications associated with mechanical ventilation. In: Tobin MJ (ed) Principles and Practice of mechanical ventilation, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Fagon JY, Chastre J, Domart Y et al (1989) Nosocomial pneumonia in patients receiving continuous mechanical ventilation. Prospective analysis of 52 episodes with use of a protected specimen brush and quantitative culture techniques. Am Rev Respir Dis 139(4):877–884
Fagon JY, Chastre J, Hance AJ et al (1993) Nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients: a cohort study evaluating attributable mortality and hospital stay. Am J Med 94(3):281–288
Girou E, Schortgen F, Delcalux C et al (2000) Association of noninvasive ventilation with nosocomial infections and survival in critically ill patients. JAMA 284(18):2361–2367
Le Bourdelles G, Viires N, Boczkowski J et al (1994) Effects of mechanical ventilation on diaphragmatic contractile properties in rats. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149(6):1539–1544
Martin LF, Booth FV, Reines HD et al (1992) Stress ulcers and organ failure in intubated patients in surgical intensive care units. Ann Surg 215(4):332–337
Ranieri VM, Giunta F, Suter PM, Slutsky AS (2000) Mechanical ventilation as a mediator of multisystem organ failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 284(1):43–44
Shapiro M, Wilson RK, Casar G et al (1986) Work of breathing through different sized endotracheal tubes. Crit Care Med 14(12):1028–3101
Stauffer JL et al (1981) Complications and consequences of endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy. Am J Med 70:65–76
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Italia
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nava, S., Fanfulla, F. (2010). Perché NIV è bello?. In: Ventilazione meccanica non invasiva. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1548-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1548-7_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Milano
Print ISBN: 978-88-470-1547-0
Online ISBN: 978-88-470-1548-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)