Evidence Hub

Association between prophylactic intermittent non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and incidence of pneumonia in patients with cervical spinal cord injury: a retrospective single-center cohort study

Yuita Fukuyama, Kazuhiro Okada, Takashi Tagami, Yoshiaki Hara, Shoji Yokobori

Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open, 2025

213 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Patients with cervical spinal cord injuries (CSCIs) have a high incidence of respiratory complications. The effectiveness of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in preventing respiratory complications such as pneumonia in acute CSCIs remains unclear. We evaluated whether intermittent NPPV (iNPPV) could prevent pneumonia in patients with acute CSCIs. Methods This single-center, retrospective study evaluated patients diagnosed with CSCIs with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale scores of A–C between January 2012 and December 2022. Patients were categorized based on receipt of iNPPV into the iNPPV and usual care groups. Prophylactic iNPPV was defined as the initiation of iNPPV within 72 hours of admission. The primary outcome was the development of pneumonia. The secondary outcomes were other respiratory complications (tracheal intubation and tracheostomy) and adverse events (delirium and vomiting). The groups were compared with regard to outcomes after adjustment for patient backgrounds using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with propensity scores. Results Of the 213 patients during the study period, 94 were included. Of these, 61 (64.9%) received prophylactic iNPPV. The incidence of pneumonia was 27.9% in the iNPPV group and 48.5% in the usual care group in the unadjusted cohort. In the propensity score analysis using IPTW, the iNPPV group showed a lower incidence of pneumonia than the usual care group (29.0% vs 56.5%,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 213 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free