Dataset Information

Comparison of Postextubation Outcomes Associated with High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients at High Risk of Reintubation: a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Liberation and extubation are important for patients supported by mechanical ventilation. Extubation success is related to the duration of an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality rate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has physiological and clinical benefits in respiratory care. The present study compared clinical outcomes associated with HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) among patients at high risk for reintubation.

Methods

A single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted between March 2018 and June 2019. Sixty adults admitted to the ICU and who were at high-risk of reintubation and met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. "High risk" for reintubation was defined as having at least one of the following risk factors: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 points on extubation day, obesity, poor expectoration, airway patency problems, difficult or prolonged weaning, and more than one comorbidity. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included duration of ICU and hospital stay, mortality rate, and time to reintubation.

Results

Of 60 patients, 31 received HFNC and 29 received COT (mean age, 78 ± 7.8 vs. 76 ± 6.5 years, respectively). Reintubation rate within 72 hours did not differ between the groups (3 patients [9.7%] vs. 1 patient [3.4%], respectively). Reintubation time was shorter among patients who received COT than among patients who received HFNC (0.5 hour vs. 25 hours), but this difference was not statistically significant. Duration of ICU did not differ between the groups (14.7 ± 9.6 days vs. 13.8 ± 15.7 days, for HFNC and COT, respectively).

Conclusion

Among patients at high risk for reintubation, compared with COT, HFNC did not reduce the risk of reintubation within 72 hours.

SUBMITTER: Cho JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7324267 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHigh-flow nasal oxygen may prevent postextubation respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). The combination of high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be an optimal strategy of ventilation to avoid reintubation.ObjectiveTo determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen with prophylactic NIV applied immediately after extubation could reduce the rate of reintubation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone, in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial conducted from April 2017 to January 2018 among 641 patients at high risk of extubation failure (ie, older than 65 years or with an underlying cardiac or respiratory disease) at 30 ICUs in France; follow-up was until April 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to high-flow nasal oxygen alone (n = 306) or high-flow nasal oxygen alternating with NIV (n = 342) immediately after extubation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients reintubated at day 7; secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure at day 7, reintubation rates up until ICU discharge, and ICU mortality.ResultsAmong 648 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 70 [10] years; 219 women [34%]), 641 patients completed the trial. The reintubation rate at day 7 was 11.8% (95% CI, 8.4%-15.2%) (40/339) with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 18.2% (95% CI, 13.9%-22.6%) (55/302) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -6.4% [95% CI, -12.0% to -0.9%]; P = .02). Among the 11 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. The proportion of patients with postextubation respiratory failure at day 7 (21% vs 29%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -15.2% to -1.8%]; P = .01) and reintubation rates up until ICU discharge (12% vs 20%, difference -7.4% [95% CI, -13.2% to -1.8%]; P = .009) were significantly lower with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. ICU mortality rates were not significantly different: 6% with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 9% with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -2.4% [95% CI, -6.7% to 1.7%]; P = .25).Conclusions and relevanceIn mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of extubation failure, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen with NIV immediately after extubation significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03121482.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients. However, their efficacy in post-extubated sepsis patients remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of HFNC vs. NIV to prevent reintubation in post-extubated sepsis patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial at the medical intensive care unit of Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Sepsis patients who had been intubated, recovered, and passed the spontaneous breathing trial were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HFNC or NIV support immediately after extubation. The primary outcome was rate of reintubation at 72 h after extubation.ResultsBetween 1st October 2017 and 31st October 2019, 222 patients were enrolled and 112 were assigned to the HFNC group and 110 to the NIV group. Both groups were well matched in baseline characteristics. The median [IQR] age of the HFNC group was 66 [50-77] vs. 65.5 [54-77] years in the NIV group. The most common causes of intubation at admission were shock-related respiratory failure (57.1% vs. 55.5%) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (34.8% vs. 40.9%) in the HFNC and NIV groups, respectively. The duration of mechanical ventilation before extubation was 5 [3-8] days in the HFNC group vs. 5 [3-9] days in the NIV group. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome: 20/112 (17.9%) in the HFNC group required reintubation at 72 h compared to 20/110 (18.2%) in the NIV group [relative risk (RR) 0.99: 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.70-1.39); P = 0.95]. The 28-day mortality was not different: 8/112 (7.1%) with HFNC vs. 10/110 (9.1%) with NIV (RR 0.88: 95% CI (0.57-1.37); P = 0.59).ConclusionsAmong sepsis patients, there was no difference between HFNC and NIV in the prevention of reintubation at 72 h after extubation. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246893; Registered 11 August 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03246893?term=surat+tongyoo&draw=2&rank=3.

Project description:PurposeHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a heterogeneous population at high-risk for extubation failure. However, outcomes might differ in certain subgroups of patients. Thus, we aimed to determine whether NIV with active humidification is superior to HFNC in preventing reintubation in patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (very high risk for extubation failure).MethodsRandomized controlled trial in two intensive care units in Spain (June 2020‒June 2021). Patients ready for planned extubation with ≥ 4 of the following risk factors for reintubation were included: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 on extubation day, body mass index > 30, inadequate secretions management, difficult or prolonged weaning, ≥ 2 comorbidities, acute heart failure indicating mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or hypercapnia on finishing the spontaneous breathing trial. Patients were randomized to undergo NIV with active humidification or HFNC for 48 h after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate within 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis, multiorgan failure, length of stay, mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation.ResultsOf 182 patients (mean age, 60 [standard deviation (SD), 15] years; 117 [64%] men), 92 received NIV and 90 HFNC. Reintubation was required in 21 (23.3%) patients receiving NIV vs 35 (38.8%) of those receiving HFNC (difference -15.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.3 to -1%). Hospital length of stay was lower in those patients treated with NIV (20 [12‒36.7] days vs 26.5 [15‒45] days, difference 6.5 [95%CI 0.5-21.1]). No additional differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed.ConclusionsAmong adult critically ill patients at very high-risk for extubation failure, NIV with active humidification was superior to HFNC for preventing reintubation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Postextubation high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is used as a support therapy in high-risk patients in ICU. This study aimed to determine the effects of HFNC therapy on lung recruitment and overdistension assessed by electrical impedance tomography (EIT). METHODS:Twenty-four patients who received HFNC within 24?h after extubation were prospectively enrolled in this study. EIT was used to monitor regional lung ventilation distributions at baseline (conventional oxygen therapy) and three flow rate levels of HFNC therapy (20, 40, and 60?L/min). Change of end-expiratory lung impedance (?EELI), regional recruitment (recruited-pixels) and overdistension (overdistended-pixels), and lung strain change were determined by EIT. EIT images were equally divided into four ventral-to-dorsal horizontal regions of interest (ROIs 1, 2, 3, and 4). "Overdistension-by HFNC" due to HFNC is defined as an increase of overdistened-pixels >?10 than baseline. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) high potential of recruitment (HPR), recruited-pixels >?10 pixels at 60?L/min than baseline, and (2) low potential of recruitment (LPR), recruited-pixels <?10 pixels at 60?L/min than baseline. RESULTS:When the flow rate gradually increased from baseline to 60?L/min, a significant and consistent increasing trend of global ?EELI (%) (p?<?0.0001), recruited-pixels (p?<?0.001), and overdistended-pixels (p?=?0.101) was observed. Moreover, the increase of ?EELI was mainly distributed in ROI2 (p?=?0.001) and ROI3 (p?<?0.0001). The HPR group (13/24 patients) had significantly higher recruited-pixels than the LPR group (11/24 patients) at 20, 40, and 60?L/min. There were no significant differences in PaO2/FiO2, ?EELI (%), and overdistention pixels between the two groups. The HPR group had 13 patients in which no one had "overdistension-by HFNC", and the LPR group had 11 patients in which 4 patients had "overdistension-by HFNC" (0/13 vs. 4/11, p?=?0.017). CONCLUSIONS:Using EIT could identify diverse effects of HFNC on lung regional ventilation in postextubation situations. Further study is required to validate using "HFNC effect" based on lung recruitment and overdistension by EIT in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was retrospectively registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (no. NCT04245241).

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) may be an attractive first-line ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients. However, HNFC use for the management of COVID-19 patients and risk factors for HFNC failure remain to be determined.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first (Mars-May 2020) and second (August 2020- February 202) French pandemic waves. Patients with limitations for intubation were excluded. HFNC failure was defined as the need for intubation after ICU admission. The impact of HFNC use was analyzed in the whole cohort and after constructing a propensity score. Risk factors for HNFC failure were identified through a landmark time-dependent cause-specific Cox model. The ability of the 6-h ROX index to detect HFNC failure was assessed by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Results200 patients were included: HFNC was used in 114(57%) patients, non-invasive ventilation in 25(12%) patients and 145(72%) patients were intubated with a median delay of 0 (0-2) days after ICU admission. Overall, 78(68%) patients had HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had a higher ICU mortality rate (34 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) than those without. At landmark time of 48 and 72 h, SAPS-2 score, extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75% and HFNC duration (cause specific hazard ratio (CSH) = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04-0.28), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 48 h and CSH = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.23), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 72 h) were associated with HFNC failure. The 6-h ROX index was lower in patients with HFNC failure but could not reliably predicted HFNC failure with an area under ROC curve of 0.65 (95% CI(0.52-0.78), p = 0.02). In the matched cohort, HFNC use was associated with a lower risk of intubation (CSH = 0.32, 95% CI (0.19-0.57), p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn critically-ill COVID-19 patients, while HFNC use as first-line ventilatory support was associated with a lower risk of intubation, more than half of patients had HFNC failure. Risk factors for HFNC failure were SAPS-2 score and extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75%. The risk of HFNC failure could not be predicted by the 6-h ROX index but decreased after a 48-h HFNC duration.