Dataset Information

High-flow oxygen and bilevel positive airway pressure for persistent dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer: a phase II randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: Dyspnea is one of the most distressing symptoms for cancer patients. The role of high-flow oxygen (HFO) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the palliation of dyspnea has not been well characterized.To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of HFO and BiPAP in cancer patients and examine the changes in dyspnea, physiologic parameters, and adverse effects with these modalities.In this randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01518140), we assigned hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and persistent dyspnea to either HFO or BiPAP for two hours. We assessed dyspnea with a numeric rating scale (NRS) and modified Borg scale (MBS) before and after the intervention. We also documented vital signs, transcutaneous carbon dioxide, and adverse effects.Thirty patients were enrolled (1:1 ratio) and 23 (77%) completed the assigned intervention. HFO was associated with improvements in both NRS (mean 1.9; 95% CI 0.4-3.4; P = 0.02) and MBS (mean 2.1; 95% CI 0.6-3.5; P = 0.007). BiPAP also was associated with improvements in NRS (mean 3.2; 95% CI 1.3-5.1; P = 0.004) and MBS (mean 1.5; 95% CI -0.3, 3.2; P = 0.13). There were no significant differences between HFO and BiPAP in dyspnea NRS (P = 0.14) and MBS (P = 0.47). Oxygen saturation improved with HFO (93% vs. 99%; P = 0.003), and respiratory rate had a nonstatistically significant decrease with both interventions (HFO -3, P = 0.11; BiPAP -2, P = 0.11). No significant adverse effects were observed.HFO and BiPAP alleviated dyspnea, improved physiologic parameters, and were safe. Our results justify larger randomized controlled trials to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Hui D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3795985 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-flow oxygen and bilevel positive airway pressure for persistent dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer: a phase II randomized trial.

Hui David D Morgado Margarita M Chisholm Gary G Withers Laura L Nguyen Quan Q Finch Clarence C Frisbee-Hume Susan S Bruera Eduardo E

Journal of pain and symptom management 20130602 4

<h4>Context</h4>Dyspnea is one of the most distressing symptoms for cancer patients. The role of high-flow oxygen (HFO) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the palliation of dyspnea has not been well characterized.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of HFO and BiPAP in cancer patients and examine the changes in dyspnea, physiologic parameters, and adverse effects with these modalities.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomized study (ClinicalTrial ...[more]

PMID: 23739633

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.Main resultsWe included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I2 = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I2 = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.Authors' conclusionsOur review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.

Dataset Information

High-flow oxygen and bilevel positive airway pressure for persistent dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer: a phase II randomized trial.

Publications

High-flow oxygen and bilevel positive airway pressure for persistent dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer: a phase II randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets