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:BackgroundThe use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio.ResultsAmong 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality.ConclusionsHospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).

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:ImportanceExtubation failure (EF) has been associated with worse outcomes in critically ill children. The relative efficacy of different modes of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) to prevent EF is unknown.ObjectiveTo study the reported relative efficacy of different modes of NRS (high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC], continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], and bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP]) compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT).Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete through May 2022.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials that enrolled critically ill children receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours and compared the efficacy of different modes of postextubation NRS.Data extraction and synthesisRandom-effects models were fit using a bayesian network meta-analysis framework. Between-group comparisons were estimated using odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Treatment rankings were assessed by rank probabilities and the surface under the cumulative rank curve (SUCRA).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was EF (reintubation within 48 to 72 hours). Secondary outcomes were treatment failure (TF, reintubation plus NRS escalation or crossover to another NRS mode), pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality, PICU and hospital length of stay, abdominal distension, and nasal injury.ResultsA total of 11 615 citations were screened, and 9 randomized clinical trials with a total of 1421 participants were included. Both CPAP and HFNC were found to be more effective than COT in reducing EF and TF (CPAP: OR for EF, 0.43; 95% CrI, 0.17-1.0 and OR for TF 0.27, 95% CrI 0.11-0.57 and HFNC: OR for EF, 0.64; 95% CrI, 0.24-1.0 and OR for TF, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.16- 0.65). CPAP had the highest likelihood of being the best intervention for both EF (SUCRA, 0.83) and TF (SUCRA, 0.91). Although not statistically significant, BiPAP was likely to be better than COT for preventing both EF and TF. Compared to COT, CPAP and BiPAP were reported as showing a modest increase (approximately 3%) in nasal injury and abdominal distension.Conclusions and relevanceThe studies included in this systematic review and network meta-analysis found that compared with COT, EF and TF rates were lower with modest increases in abdominal distension and nasal injury. Of the modes evaluated, CPAP was associated with the lowest rates of EF and TF.

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