{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029923451635351428, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006263048016701462, 'mean_word_length': 5.307017543859649, '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}}
Non invasive proportional assist ventilation versus pressure support ventilation in management of acute  respiratory failure of COPD

Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is hypothesized to have better comfort, less airway pressure, less likelihood of over ventilation, and  better triggering and synchrony. Objective: To compare between the effect of non invasive  proportional assist ventilation and pressure support ventilation in-patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to acute exacerbation of COPD. Patients & methods: Thirty six patients were offered enrollment into the study if they had acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to acute exacerbation of COPD despite standard medical treatment. Patients were categorized into two groups of equal number, PSV group, and PAV group, according to if they submitted for S/T, or PAV/T mode respectively. Patients were fitted with an oronasal  mask (Comfort full  Mask, Respironics, Inc)  connected to BiPAP vision ventilator (Respironics Inc, Murrysville PA). Results:  A total of 26 patients (72.2 %) were managed successfully with non invasive ventilation (NIV); 12 in PSV group, and 14 in PAV group.Both groups show significant (P Conclusion: Both non invasive PSV and PAV can reduce respiratory effort, and improve gas exchange in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to COPD. PAV is preferred for patients with good triggering, otherwise PSV should be used.