CPAP greatly reduces cost to hospitals.  It cuts down intubation which, in turn, cuts down time spent in the hospital.  On average, non-intubated patients stay in the hospital for about 5 days while intubated patients stay for an average of 10 days.  Of the 10 days spent at the hospital for intubated patients, five of them are typically spent in the ICU which costs three to four times the amount of the general ward.  A study, using these criteria, showed that the cost savings for a hospital was $499,717.  Subtracting out the cost to implement CPAP for one year, which the study conservatively overestimated to be $10,686, the total savings was $489,031.  Since CPAP was used 120 times that year, this equals a $4,075 savings per CPAP use.  However, this study used an extremely conservative length-of-stay reduction.  They also had a more aggressive intubation reduction model that estimated the hospital saving would have been $1,118,050, resulting in a cost savings of $9,317 per CPAP use.  Then, when you add into the equation the reduced amount of ventilator uses, the savings add up to even more.  In conclusion, CPAP is helping save lives and saving the hospitals money while doing it.

One of the other huge benefits of CPAP is that it reduces the amount of patients who need to go on a ventilator.  Ventilators are dangerous because 28% of people who go on one develop ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).  About 27% of people who develop VAP will lose their life to it.  Some studies have even seen mortality rates as high as 65% due to VAP.  According to the CDC, VAP has accounted for approximately 15% of all hospital associated infections and 27% and 24% of all infections acquired in the medical ICU and coronary care unit, respectively.  So, not only does CPAP avoid hundreds of intubations per year, but also deadly cases of VAP.  This is just another example of how important CPAP is to hospitals and emergency medical services.

A study in North Carolina, examining the effectiveness of pre-hospital CPAP in managing acute pulmonary edema in 215 enrolled patients, found that 25.26% of its patients that did not receive CPAP (control group) required intubation, compared to only 8.92% of the group who were administered CPAP (treatment group).  This is significant because intubating someone is a very uncomfortable and difficult procedure for the patient and can lead to other complications.  CPAP is a non-invasive ventilation procedure and is much easier on the patient.  The control group had a higher amount of patients intubated in the field, 7.36%, compared to the treatment group, 4.2%, receiving pre-hospital CPAP.  Since CPAP is a non-invasive ventilation procedure, it is much easier to get the patient to willingly cooperate and get them on their way to the hospital faster than intubating.  Even more importantly, the overall mortality rate of the CPAP group (5.35%) was significantly lower than that of the control group (23.15%).

One of the differences between the control group and the CPAP group was what they were treated with.  The control group was significantly more likely to be treated with furosemide and morphine, while the CPAP group was given much greater doses of nitro.  Some previous studies have shown that length of stay increases and mortality rates increase when patients receive furosemide and morphine without having had pulmonary edema.  This is significant because almost 25% of the patients did not actually end up having pulmonary edema as their final hospital diagnosis, but instead had either COPD or pneumonia.  So, not only is CPAP more effective in treating pulmonary edema, it is also safer.  Add that to the fact that CPAP is easier on all of the patients because it is a non-invasive ventilation procedure and it becomes clear that there are many benefits to using pre-hospital CPAP.

In Halifax, Canada a study was conducted to see the effects of pre-hospital CPAP.  CPAP treatment is a type of non-invasive ventilation.  The study had one group that was not administered CPAP but instead were treated normally (control group) and a group that was treated with CPAP alongside normal procedures (CPAP group).  The control group had 17 of 34 (50%) patients who had to be intubated versus seven of 35 (20%) in the CPAP group.  Furthermore, the study found that 12 of 34 (35.3%) passed away from the control group whereas only five of 35 (14.3%) were lost from the CPAP group.  The CPAP group seemed to have better patient outcomes.  The end results showed a 30% reduction in the tracheal intubation rate and an absolute reduction in mortality of 21%.  This study shows that pre-hospital CPAP leads to better patient outcomes.

Another study in Houston has seen its average intubations per day drop from 4.5 in the two years preceding the implementation of pre-hospital CPAP to an average of 3.7 intubations per day in the two years following the implementation of CPAP.  That equates to 560 (3,279 down to 2,719) less intubations over the last two years because of CPAP.  One of the benefits of using CPAP over intubating a patient is that CPAP uses non-invasive ventilation whereas intubation is very uncomfortable for a patient.  Non-invasive ventilation allows for the patient to be more relaxed during treatment.  The non-invasive ventilation from pre-hospital CPAP treatment allows for better patient outcomes and experiences.