Dataset Information

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure after Extubation: An Observational Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been widely applied in patients with high-risk extubation failure, including heart failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been demonstrated to benefit patients with heart failure by reducing cardiac preload. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFNC to NPPV for preventing extubation failure in patients with heart failure. This 3-year retrospective and single-center cohort study included patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who received prophylactic HFNC or NPPV after scheduled extubation from January 2015 to January 2018 from a medical center with four adult intensive care units. Demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis, and weaning status were collected. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 72 hours after extubation, which was defined as escalation to NPPV or reintubation in the HFNC group and was defined as requiring reintubation in the NPPV group. Secondary outcomes were reintubation within 72 hours, reintubation, duration of stay, and mortality during the intensive care unit and hospital stay. Of the 104 patients analyzed, characteristics of 58 patients in the HFNC group and 46 patients in the NPPV group were compared. The treatment failure within 72 hours in the two groups was not significantly different (25.9% vs 13%, p=0.106). Hypoxemic respiratory failure related treatment failure was significantly higher in the HFNC group. Prophylactic HFNC as first-line therapy had a comparable rate of reintubation within 72 hours to the prophylactic NPPV alone (17.2% vs 13%, p=0.556). Other secondary outcomes were similar between the two groups. Among patients with heart failure, HFNC was not inferior to NPPV for preventing extubation failure and reintubation. However, in case of an impending respiratory failure, selective patients may benefit from rescue NPPV.

SUBMITTER: Chang CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7354657 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure after Extubation: An Observational Cohort Study.

Chang Che-Jung CJ Chiang Ling-Ling LL Chen Kuan-Yuan KY Feng Po-Hao PH Su Chien-Ling CL Hsu Han-Shui HS

Canadian respiratory journal 20200703

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been widely applied in patients with high-risk extubation failure, including heart failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been demonstrated to benefit patients with heart failure by reducing cardiac preload. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFNC to NPPV for preventing extubation failure in patients with heart failure. This 3-year retrospective and single-center cohort study included patients with heart failure with left ve ...[more]

PMID: 32714476

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe study aimed to compare and analyze the outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) who had extubation after weaning from mechanical ventilation.MethodsA total 120 patients with AHRF were enrolled into this study. These patients underwent tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were organized into two groups according to the score of Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II); group A: APACHE II score <12; group B: 12⩽ APACHE II score <24. Group A had 72 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (36 patients in each subgroup). Group B had 48 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (24 patients in each subgroup). General information, respiratory parameters, endpoint event, and comorbidities of adverse effect were compared and analyzed between the two subgroups.ResultsThe incidence of abdominal distension was significantly higher in patients treated with NPPV than in those treated with HFNC in group A (19.44% versus 0, p = 0.005) and group B (25% versus 0, p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the HFNC- and NPPV-treated patients in blood pH, oxygenation index, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, respiratory rate, and blood lactic acid concentration in either group (p > 0.05). Occurrence rate of re-intubation within 72 h of extubation was slightly, but not significantly, higher in NPPV-treated patients (p > 0.05).ConclusionThere was no significant difference between HFNC and NPPV in preventing respiratory failure in patients with AHRF with an APACHE II score <24 after extubation. However, HFNC was superior to NPPV with less incidence of abdominal distension.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

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:Many intensive care unit patients who undergo endotracheal extubation experience extubation failure and require reintubation. Because of the high mortality rate associated with reintubation, postextubation respiratory management is crucial, especially for high-risk populations. We conducted the present study to compare the effectiveness of oxygen therapy administered using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preventing reintubation among patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). This single-center, prospective, unblinded randomized controlled trial was at the respiratory care center (RCC). Participants were randomized to an HFNC group or an NIPPV group (20 patients in each) and received noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) administered using their assigned method. The primary outcome was reintubation within7 days after extubation. None of the patients in the NIPPV group required reintubation, whereas 5 (25%) of the patients in the HFNC group required reintubation (P = 0.047). The 90-day mortality rates of the NIPPV and HFNC groups (four patients [20%] vs. two patients [10%], respectively) did not differ significantly. No significant differences in length of RCC stay, length of hospital stay, time to liberation from NRS, and ventilator-free days at 28-day were identified. The time to event outcome analysis also revealed that the risk of reintubation in the HFNC group was higher than that in the NIPPV group (P = 0.018). Although HFNC is becoming increasingly common as a form of postextubation NRS, HFNC may not be as effective as NIPPV in preventing reintubation among patients who have been receiving PMV for at least 2 weeks. Additional studies evaluating HFNC as an alternative to NIPPV for patients receiving PMV are warranted.ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04564859; IRB number: 20160901R.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04564859 ).

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:Our objective was to evaluate the association of respiratory rate oxygenation index (ROX) with the need for positive pressure ventilation in children < 2 years of age with bronchiolitis on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy. We performed a single-center prospective observational study of a convenience sample of children < 2 years of age with bronchiolitis who had HFNC initiated in the pediatric emergency department between November and March, 2018-2020. ROX was calculated as pulse oximetry/FiO2/respiratory rate at HFNC initiation. Demographics, need for positive pressure ventilation (PPV), disposition, and hospital length of stay were collected. Logistic regression model was used to determine the odds ratio for PPV need relative to the highest ROX quartile. Of the 373 patients included, 49 (13.1%) required PPV. ROX was lower in patients who required PPV compared with those who did not (5.86 [4.71-7.42] vs. 6.74 [5.46-8.25]; p = 0.01). Logistic regression revealed that those patients whose ROX was in the lowest quartile (< 5.39) were three times more likely to require PPV compared to those in the highest quartile (> 8.21). These results held true after adjusting for confounders (odds ratio 3.1; 95% CI [1.3 to 7.5]; p = 0.02). The model's AUROC (0.701) indicated acceptable discrimination between cases and controls.ConclusionLow ROX index was associated with the need for PPV in children with bronchiolitis on HFNC. The risk stratification provided and ROX threshold for risk stratification require confirmation in other populations with a larger sample size.What is known• Demographic and clinical factors associated with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in children with bronchiolitis has been studied.What is new• This is the first study to report the utility of association of Respiratory Rate Oxygenation (ROX) index for need for positive pressure ventilation (PPV) in children < 2 years of age with bronchiolitis on HFNC therapy. • ROX was lower in children who required PPV and children whose ROX was in the lowest quartile (< 5.39) were three times more likely to require PPV compared to those in the highest quartile (> 8.21).

Dataset Information

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure after Extubation: An Observational Cohort Study.

Publications

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure after Extubation: An Observational Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets