{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027881040892193308, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037174721189591076, 'mean_word_length': 5.3352941176470585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Respiratory support for severe acute respiratory syndrome: integration of efficacy and safety.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an acute respiratory illness caused by infection with the SARS virus. The most obvious clinical characteristic of SARS is rapidly progressive pneumonia, and about 20% patients need intensive care due to acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).1-3 In the absence of effective drugs for SARS, supportive care, especially respiratory support techniques (RSTs), is of primary importance. On the other hand, offering RSTs to SARS patients may carry a high-risk of infection to healthcare workers because of the high infectivity of SARS. Therefore, the strategy of RSTs for SARS should be the integration of efficacy and safety. In this issue of the Chinese Medical Journal, an article from Hong Kong has retrospectively compared both the safety and efficacy of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with that of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in the treatment of respiratory failure in SARS.