The success of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in lung cancer patients with respiratory failure

Introduction and aim: Despite the improvement in survival among patients with lung cancer as a result of the development of novel treatment options, acute respiratory failure (ARF), which may occur because of the disease itself, comorbidities or complications in treatment may be life threatening. The most commonly utilised treatment option in cancer patients with ARF is invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The prognosis of lung cancer patients admitted to the intensive care unit is poor. The use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in the setting of ARF not only supports the respiratory muscles and facilitates alveolar ventilation and airway patency, but also reduces the risk of serious complications of IMV, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia. NIMV treatment in the event of respiratory failure has been associated with a high rate of mortality in recently diagnosed or progressive lung cancer with organ failure. However, studies in this regard are limited, and the role of NIMV has yet to be investigated in patients in hospital wards. Accordingly, the present study investigates retrospectively the success of NIMV among patients with lung cancer (including all stages and histopathological types) in a hospital ward setting and the influential factors.

Material and method: The data of 42 patients with lung cancer and respiratory failure who were admitted to the palliative care service and received NIMV between 2014 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic features, comorbidities, respiratory failure types, rate of withdrawal from NIMV, frequencies of tracheostomy and intubation, bacteriologic examination of the airway samples, rate of discharge from hospital and any history of NIMV/USOT use at home were recorded. NIMV success was defined as the discharge of the patient from the hospital, with or without a respiratory support device. The primary end-point of the study was NIMV success, while the secondary end-point was NIMV success with respect to the underlying diagnosis and respiratory failure type.

Results: A total of 42 patients (38 males and 4 females) were included in the study, with a mean age of 67.4 ± 9.5 years. The rate of discharge from hospital was 71% across the entire study population, among which, 13 (31%) were discharged with USOT and 16 (38.1%) with NIMV. Among the 12 patients under palliative supportive treatment, 8 were discharged from the hospital. The success rates of NIMV in the respiratory failure aetiological subgroups were: 66% (12 patients) in the pneumonia subgroup and 71.4% (15 patients) in the COPD subgroup. The difference between these subgroups was not significant (P = .841). The success rate of NIMV in the hypercapnic and hypoxaemic respiratory failure subgroups was 72.7% (24 patients) and 66.6% (6 patients), respectively. There were no significant differences between the type of respiratory failure subgroups (P = .667). The success rate of NIMV was similar in patients with a positive airway sample microbiology (71.4%, n = 14) and those with no growth identified in the culture (70.3%, n = 28) (P = .834).

Conclusion: In lung cancer patients with no contraindication, NIMV can be used to reduce or postpone the need for ICU admission, independent of disease stage, cellular type and underlying cause.