Mehta S et al, 1997, USA | 27 patients with ACPO | Prospective randomised controlled trial | Clinical variables | BP and PaCO2 lower in NIPPV group (p<0.05) | Small numbers |
| NIPPV v CPAP | | Incidence of myocardial infarction | 10/14 in NIPPV group v 4/13 with CPAP (p=0.05) | Study stopped early due to MI differences |
| | | Length of ICU/hospital stay, intubation rates, mortality | N/S differences between groups | NIPPV had more chest pain at baseline |
Sharon A et al, 2000, Israel | 40 patients with ACPO | Prospective randomised controlled trial | Mortality | 2/20 in NIPPV group v 0/20 (N/S) | No power calculation |
| NIPPV and low dose nitrates v high dose nitrates alone | | Intubation rate | 16/20 in NIPPV group v 2/20 (p=0.0004) | Study stopped early due to differences in rate of intubation |
| | | Incidence of myocardial infarctionSaO2, pulse and respiratory rates | 11/20 in NIPPV group v 2/20 (p=0.006)Improvement significantly slower with NIPPV | Pre-hospital setting |
Masip J et al, 2000, Spain | 40 patients with ACPO | PRCT | Mortality | Control 2/18 | Not analysed on basis of intention to treat |
| NIPPV v O2 | | | Intervention 0/18 | Small numbers with likely effect of underpowered study |
| | | Intubation | Control 6/18 | |
| | | | Intervention 1/19 (P=0.04) | |
| | | Hospital stay | No significant difference between groups | |
Park M et al, 2001, Brazil | 26 patients with ACPOO2 v BiPAP v CPAP | PRCT | Clinical variables (for example, RR, HR, etc) | No difference at 60 mins | Small numbers |
| | | | | No power calculation |
| | | Intubation | O2—4/10 | No clear randomisation |
| | | | CPAP—3/9 | |
| | | | BiPAP—0/7 | |
| | | Death | O2—0 | |
| | | | CPAP—1 (day 3) | |
| | | | BiPAP—0 | |