NIV@Home: a pilot randomized controlled trial of in-home noninvasive ventilation initiation compared to a single-day admission model.

IF 2.8
Nicole L Sheers, Liam M Hannan, Linda Rautela, Marnie Graco, Jennifer Jones, Sarah Retica, Krisha Saravanan, Nicola Burgess, Rebekah McGaw, Ashleigh Donovan, Talia Clohessy, Caroline Chao, Cameron Charles, Mark E Howard, David J Berlowitz
{"title":"NIV@Home: a pilot randomized controlled trial of in-home noninvasive ventilation initiation compared to a single-day admission model.","authors":"Nicole L Sheers, Liam M Hannan, Linda Rautela, Marnie Graco, Jennifer Jones, Sarah Retica, Krisha Saravanan, Nicola Burgess, Rebekah McGaw, Ashleigh Donovan, Talia Clohessy, Caroline Chao, Cameron Charles, Mark E Howard, David J Berlowitz","doi":"10.1080/21678421.2024.2416668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Objective</i>: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is the primary treatment for respiratory insufficiency in neuromuscular disease. NIV implementation is usually conducted within hospitals; however, in-home implementation with intensive follow-up is an effective alternative. This pilot study aimed to assess model feasibility, acceptability, and NIV usage at 12-weeks after a single visit in-home implementation of NIV with remote monitoring follow-up (NIV@Home) compared to an in-hospital day admission NIV initiation plus planned polysomnography (Usual care). <i>Methods</i>: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12620000682943) of adults with neuromuscular disease referred for NIV implementation. Participants were stratified by disease (MND or Other diagnoses) and bulbar symptoms before randomization to NIV@Home or Usual care, with follow-up at 12-weeks. The primary outcome was NIV usage. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, health-related quality of life, symptoms, carer burden, and NIV experience (semi-structured qualitative interviews). <i>Results</i>: Twenty-three participants (MND bulbar = 9, MND non-bulbar = 11, Other = 3) were randomized (NIV@Home = 9). No statistical differences were observed in the percentage of MND participants using NIV for >4 hours/day (NIV@Home = 33% vs. Usual care = 60%, <i>p</i> = 0.370), average use (NIV@Home = 2.4 [1.5-9.3] vs. 5.3 [1.8-7.0] hours/day, <i>p</i> = 0.568), or secondary outcomes. In-home NIV implementation was feasible and safe but took more therapist time (NIV@Home = 278 [270-305] vs. 172 [130-200] minutes, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Participants in the NIV@Home group reported substantial advantages to receiving care in home. <i>Conclusion</i>: In-home NIV implementation is feasible and acceptable to people with MND but requires more therapist time. Larger studies are required to determine whether there are clinically important differences between this model of NIV initiation and a traditional hospital-based model.</p>","PeriodicalId":72184,"journal":{"name":"Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration","volume":" ","pages":"239-248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2024.2416668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is the primary treatment for respiratory insufficiency in neuromuscular disease. NIV implementation is usually conducted within hospitals; however, in-home implementation with intensive follow-up is an effective alternative. This pilot study aimed to assess model feasibility, acceptability, and NIV usage at 12-weeks after a single visit in-home implementation of NIV with remote monitoring follow-up (NIV@Home) compared to an in-hospital day admission NIV initiation plus planned polysomnography (Usual care). Methods: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12620000682943) of adults with neuromuscular disease referred for NIV implementation. Participants were stratified by disease (MND or Other diagnoses) and bulbar symptoms before randomization to NIV@Home or Usual care, with follow-up at 12-weeks. The primary outcome was NIV usage. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, health-related quality of life, symptoms, carer burden, and NIV experience (semi-structured qualitative interviews). Results: Twenty-three participants (MND bulbar = 9, MND non-bulbar = 11, Other = 3) were randomized (NIV@Home = 9). No statistical differences were observed in the percentage of MND participants using NIV for >4 hours/day (NIV@Home = 33% vs. Usual care = 60%, p = 0.370), average use (NIV@Home = 2.4 [1.5-9.3] vs. 5.3 [1.8-7.0] hours/day, p = 0.568), or secondary outcomes. In-home NIV implementation was feasible and safe but took more therapist time (NIV@Home = 278 [270-305] vs. 172 [130-200] minutes, p < 0.001). Participants in the NIV@Home group reported substantial advantages to receiving care in home. Conclusion: In-home NIV implementation is feasible and acceptable to people with MND but requires more therapist time. Larger studies are required to determine whether there are clinically important differences between this model of NIV initiation and a traditional hospital-based model.

NIV@Home: 与单日入院模式相比的居家无创通气启动随机对照试验。
目的:无创通气(NIV)是治疗神经肌肉疾病患者呼吸功能不全的主要方法。无创通气通常在医院内实施;然而,在家实施并进行强化随访是一种有效的替代方法。这项试点研究旨在评估单次上门实施 NIV 并进行远程监控随访(NIV@Home)与医院日间入院启动 NIV 并计划进行多导睡眠图检查(常规护理)相比,模型的可行性、可接受性以及 12 周后的 NIV 使用情况。方法:单盲随机对照试验单盲随机对照试验(www.anzctr.org.au ACTRN12620000682943),对象为转诊实施 NIV 的神经肌肉疾病成人患者。参与者按疾病(MND 或其他诊断)和球部症状进行分层,然后随机分配到 NIV@Home 或常规护理,随访 12 周。主要结果是NIV使用情况。次要结果包括可行性、与健康相关的生活质量、症状、照护者负担和 NIV 体验(半结构化定性访谈)。结果:23名参与者(MND球茎型=9人,MND非球茎型=11人,其他=3人)接受了随机治疗(NIV@Home=9人)。在每天使用 NIV 超过 4 小时的 MND 参与者比例(NIV@Home = 33% vs. 常规护理 = 60%,p = 0.370)、平均使用时间(NIV@Home = 2.4 [1.5-9.3] vs. 5.3 [1.8-7.0] 小时/天,p = 0.568)或次要结果方面,未观察到统计学差异。在家中实施 NIV 是可行的,也是 MND 患者可以接受的,但需要治疗师花费更多的时间。需要进行更大规模的研究,以确定这种 NIV 启动模式与传统的医院模式之间是否存在重要的临床差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信