Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

ABSTRACT: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a recent technique delivering a high flow of heated and humidified gas. HFNC is simpler to use and apply than noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and appears to be a good alternative treatment for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). HFNC is better tolerated than NIV, delivers high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), generates a low level of positive pressure and provides washout of dead space in the upper airways, thereby improving mechanical pulmonary properties and unloading inspiratory muscles during ARF. A recent multicenter randomized controlled trial showed benefits of HFNC concerning mortality and intubation in severe patients with hypoxemic ARF. In management of patients with hypoxemic ARF, NIV results have been conflicting. Despite improved oxygenation, NIV delivered with face mask may generate high tidal volumes and subsequent ventilator-induced lung injury. An approach applying NIV with a helmet, high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and low pressure support (PS) levels seems to open new opportunities in patients with hypoxemic ARF. However, a large-scale randomized controlled study is needed to assess and compare this approach with HFNC.

SUBMITTER: Frat JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537116 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Frat Jean-Pierre JP Coudroy Rémi R Marjanovic Nicolas N Thille Arnaud W AW

Annals of translational medicine 20170701 14

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a recent technique delivering a high flow of heated and humidified gas. HFNC is simpler to use and apply than noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and appears to be a good alternative treatment for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). HFNC is better tolerated than NIV, delivers high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO<sub>2</sub>), generates a low level of positive pressure and provides washout of dead space in the upper airways, thereby improving mec ...[more]

PMID: 28828372

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of early high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and low-flow oxygen support (LFOS) in children under 5 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to severe community-acquired pneumonia in low-middle-income countries.MethodsAn open-label randomized clinical trial enrolled children aged 2-59 months with AHRF due to severe community-acquired pneumonia and randomized into HFNC and LFOS. In the LFOS group, the patient received cold wall oxygen humidified by bubbling through sterile water administered through simple nasal prongs at a fixed flow rate of 2 L/min. In the HFNC group, the patient received humidified, heated (37 °C), high-flow oxygen at a flow rate assigned based on weight range, with a titratable oxygen fraction. The primary outcome was treatment failure in 72 h (escalating the respiratory support method using any modality other than primary intervention).ResultsData was analyzed intention-to-treat (HFNC = 124; LFOS = 120). Median (IQR) age was 12 (6-20) and 11 (6-27) months, respectively. Treatment failure occurred in a significantly lower proportion in the HFNC group (7.3%, n = 9/124) as compared to the LFOS group (20%, n = 24/120) (relative risk = 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; p = 0.004; adjusted hazard ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.73; p = 0.006). The intubation rate was significantly lower in the HFNC group (7.3%, n = 9/124 vs. 16.7%, n = 20/120; relative risk = 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92, p = 0.023). There were no significant differences noted in other secondary outcomes. No mortality occurred.ConclusionHigh-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy used as early respiratory support in children under 5 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe community-acquired pneumonia was associated with significantly lower treatment failure compared with standard low-flow oxygen support.Trial registrationCTRI/2016/04/006788. Registered 01 April 2016, https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44253-024-00031-8.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or standard oxygen in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe reviewed randomized controlled trials from CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to February 2016), conference proceedings, and relevant article reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted trial-level data from trials investigating HFNC in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, and pH. Safety outcomes included respiratory arrest, intubation, delirium, and skin breakdown.ResultsFrom 2023 screened citations, we identified seven trials (1771 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. There was no evidence for a mortality difference in patients receiving HFNC vs. NIV and/or standard oxygen (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48, I 2 = 63%, five trials, 1629 patients). In subgroup analyses of HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen individually, mortality differences were not observed. Measures of patient tolerability were heterogeneous. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 6-12 h was significantly lower in patients receiving oxygen via HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen for hypoxemic respiratory failure (MD - 53.34, 95% CI - 71.95 to - 34.72, I 2 = 61%, 1143 patients). There were no differences in pH, PaCO2, or rates of intubation or cardio-respiratory arrest. Delirium and skin breakdown were infrequently reported in included trials.ConclusionsIn patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure HFNC was not associated with a difference in mortality compared to NIV or standard oxygen. Secondary outcomes including dyspnea, tolerance, and safety were not systematically reported. Residual heterogeneity and variable reporting of secondary outcomes limit the conclusions that can be made in this review. Prospective trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are required.

Project description:ObjectivesAn ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.DesignA multicenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.PatientsForty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.

Project description:ImportanceHigh-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200).InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay.ResultsAmong 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.

Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Publications

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets