Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in immunocompromised patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is an alternative to standard oxygen. By providing warmed and humidified gas, HFNO allows the delivery of higher flow rates via nasal cannula devices, with FiO2 values of nearly 100%. Benefits include alleviation of dyspnea and discomfort, decreased respiratory distress and decreased mortality in unselected patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, in preliminary reports, HFNO benefits are controversial in immunocompromised patients in whom it has never been properly evaluated. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial in 30 intensive care units, part of the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique (GRRR-OH). Inclusion criteria will be: (1) adults, (2) known immunosuppression, (3) ARF, (4) oxygen therapy ??6 L/min, (5) written informed consent from patient or proxy. Exclusion criteria will be: (1) imminent death (moribund patient), (2) no informed consent, (3) hypercapnia (PaCO2 ??50 mmHg), (4) isolated cardiogenic pulmonary edema, (5) pregnancy or breastfeeding, (6) anatomical factors precluding insertion of a nasal cannula, (7) no coverage by the French statutory healthcare insurance system, and (8) post-surgical setting from day 1 to day 6 (patients with ARF occurring after day 6 of surgery can be included). The primary outcome measure is day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes are intubation rate, comfort, dyspnea, respiratory rate, oxygenation, ICU length of stay, and ICU-acquired infections. Based on an expected 30% mortality rate in the standard oxygen group, and 20% in the HFNO group, error rate set at 5%, and a statistical power at 90%, 389 patients are required in each treatment group (778 patients overall). Recruitment period is estimated at 30 months, with 28 days of additional follow-up for the last included patient. DISCUSSION:The HIGH study will be the largest multicenter, randomized controlled trial seeking to demonstrate that survival benefits from HFNO reported in unselected patients also apply to a large immunocompromised population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02739451 . Registered on 15 April 2016.

SUBMITTER: Azoulay E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5836389 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Azoulay Elie E Lemiale Virginie V Mokart Djamel D Nseir Saad S Argaud Laurent L Pène Frédéric F Kontar Loay L Bruneel Fabrice F Klouche Kada K Barbier François F Reignier Jean J Stoclin Anabelle A Louis Guillaume G Constantin Jean-Michel JM Mayaux Julien J Wallet Florent F Kouatchet Achille A Peigne Vincent V Perez Pierre P Girault Christophe C Jaber Samir S Oziel Johanna J Nyunga Martine M Terzi Nicolas N Bouadma Lila L Lebert Christine C Lautrette Alexandre A Bigé Naike N Raphalen Jean-Herlé JH Papazian Laurent L Rabbat Antoine A Darmon Michael M Chevret Sylvie S Demoule Alexandre A

Trials 20180305 1

<h4>Background</h4>Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in immunocompromised patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is an alternative to standard oxygen. By providing warmed and humidified gas, HFNO allows the delivery of higher flow rates via nasal cannula devices, with FiO<sub>2</sub> values of nearly 100%. Benefits include alleviation of dyspnea and discomfort, decreased respiratory distress and decreased mortality in unselecte ...[more]

PMID: 29506579

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy is increasingly used for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF).ObjectiveTo determine whether high-flow oxygen therapy decreases mortality among immunocompromised patients with AHRF compared with standard oxygen therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThe HIGH randomized clinical trial enrolled 776 adult immunocompromised patients with AHRF (Pao2 <60 mm Hg or Spo2 <90% on room air, or tachypnea >30/min or labored breathing or respiratory distress, and need for oxygen ≥6 L/min) at 32 intensive care units (ICUs) in France between May 19, 2016, and December 31, 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to continuous high-flow oxygen therapy (n = 388) or to standard oxygen therapy (n = 388).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes included intubation and mechanical ventilation by day 28, Pao2:Fio2 ratio over the 3 days after intubation, respiratory rate, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, ICU-acquired infections, and patient comfort and dyspnea.ResultsOf 778 randomized patients (median age, 64 [IQR, 54-71] years; 259 [33.3%] women), 776 (99.7%) completed the trial. At randomization, median respiratory rate was 33/min (IQR, 28-39) vs 32 (IQR, 27-38) and Pao2:Fio2 was 136 (IQR, 96-187) vs 128 (IQR, 92-164) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Median SOFA score was 6 (IQR, 4-8) in both groups. Mortality on day 28 was not significantly different between groups (35.6% vs 36.1%; difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -7.3% to +6.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.24]; P = .94). Intubation rate was not significantly different between groups (38.7% vs 43.8%; difference, -5.1% [95% CI, -12.3% to +2.0%]). Compared with controls, patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy had a higher Pao2:Fio2 (150 vs 119; difference, 19.5 [95% CI, 4.4 to 34.6]) and lower respiratory rate after 6 hours (25/min vs 26/min; difference, -1.8/min [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]). No significant difference was observed in ICU length of stay (8 vs 6 days; difference, 0.6 [95% CI, -1.0 to +2.2]), ICU-acquired infections (10.0% vs 10.6%; difference, -0.6% [95% CI, -4.6 to +4.1]), hospital length of stay (24 vs 27 days; difference, -2 days [95% CI, -7.3 to +3.3]), or patient comfort and dyspnea scores.Conclusions and relevanceAmong critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, high-flow oxygen therapy did not significantly decrease day-28 mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02739451.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO2 <90%, PaO2:FiO2 ratio ?300, PaO2 ?60?mm Hg, or PaCO2 ?45?mm Hg. The intervention is HFNO (humidified oxygen, flow rate ?20?L/min) compared separately to NIV or COT. The critical outcomes are: all-cause mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, intubation/reintubation (days of intubation), intensive care unit admission/transfers, patient comfort and hospital length of stay. The important outcomes are: delirium, 30-day hospital readmissions, barotrauma, compromised nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition), gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge and skin breakdown or pressure ulcers. We will calculate risk ratios and Peto ORs (for rare events) and corresponding 95% CIs for categorical outcomes. Mean and standardised mean difference will be calculated for continuous outcomes. Where possible and appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome. CONCLUSION:This systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019146691.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial.ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs).Design, setting, and participantsThe SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events.ResultsAmong the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.

Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

High-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets