Dataset Information

High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula vs. Non-Invasive Ventilation in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula (HFNC) provides adequate oxygenation and can be an alternative to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of HFNC versus NIV in hypercapnic respiratory failure. Patients (n = 40) who were admitted to the Emergency Department of Alexandra Hospital due to hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO2 ? 45 mmHg) were randomized assigned into two groups, i.e., an intervention group (use of HFNC, n = 20) and a control group (use of NIV, n = 20). During their hospitalization in the Intensive Care Unit, vital signs (respiratory and heart rate, arterial blood pressure) and arterial blood gases (ABG) were closely monitored on admission, after 24 h and at discharge. No difference between the two groups regarding the duration of hospitalization and the use of HFNC or NIV was observed (p > 0.05). On admission, the two groups did not differ in terms of gender, age, body mass index, APACHE score, predicted death rate, heart rate, arterial blood pressure and arterial blood gases (p > 0.05). Respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (p = 0.023). At discharge, partial carbon dioxide arterial pressure (PaCO2) in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (50.8 ± 9.4 mmHg versus 59.6 ± 13.9 mmHg, p = 0.024). The lowerPaCO2 in the HFNC group than in the NIV group indicated that HFNC was superior to NIV in the management of hypercapnic respiratory failure.

SUBMITTER: Papachatzakis Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7459687 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula vs. Non-Invasive Ventilation in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Papachatzakis Yiannis Y Nikolaidis Pantelis Theodoros PT Kontogiannis Sofoklis S Trakada Georgia G

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200818 16

High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula (HFNC) provides adequate oxygenation and can be an alternative to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of HFNC versus NIV in hypercapnic respiratory failure. Patients (n = 40) who were admitted to the Emergency Department of Alexandra Hospital due to hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO<sub>2</sub> ≥ 45 mmHg) were randomized assigned into two groups, i.e., an ...[more]

PMID: 32824771

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Although the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in hypoxemic respiratory failure are widely recognized, it is yet unclear whether HFNC can effectively reduce the intubation rate and mortality in hypercapnic respiratory failure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficiency of HFNC in these patients. Methods:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was carried out. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to the inclusion criteria. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, respectively. Data from eligible trials were extracted for the meta-analysis. Results:Eight studies with a total of 621 participants were included (six RCTs and two cohort studies). Our analysis showed that HFNC is noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with respect to intubation rate in both RCTs (OR?=?0.92, 95% CI: 0.45-1.88) and cohort studies (OR?=?0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.62). Similarly, the analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in reducing mortality rates (OR?=?0.96, 95% CI: 0.42-2.20). Based on RCTs, NIV seemed more effective in reducing mortality (OR?=?1.33, 95% CI: 0.68-2.60), but the intertreatment difference was not statistically signi?cant. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between HFNC and NIV relating to change of blood gas analysis or respiratory rate (MD?=?-0.75, 95% CI: -2.6 to 1.09). Likewise, no significant intergroup differences were found with regard to intensive care unit stay (SMD?=?-0.07, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.11). Due to a physiological friendly interface and variation, HFNC showed a significant advantage over NIV in patients' comfort and complication of therapy. Conclusion:Despite the limitations noted, HFNC may be an effective and safe alternative to prevent endotracheal intubation and mortality when NIV is unsuitable in mild-to-moderate hypercapnia. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory failure (ARF) is a respiratory disease in which ventilation dysfunction of the lungs occurs at rest due to various factors, resulting in oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide (CO2) retention. In recent years, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), as a new type of oxygen therapy, has attracted increasing attention. Compared with traditional oxygen therapy, HFNC adopts nasal catheter to make it more in line with the physiological and respiratory characteristics of the human body, and thus can provide a higher and more constant inhalation of oxygen. This retrospective study was conducted to explore the clinical effect of HFNC combined with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of critically ill patients with ARF.MethodsA total of 532 critically ill patients with ARF treated in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020 were screened for the suitability for being included in the study. Of these, 261 patients in this study received NIV. In total, 151 patients were included after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. NIV was generally given intermittently, and the daily duration of application was determined according to the patient's condition. The NIV-treated patients were assigned into two groups according to the oxygen inhalation mode during intermittent NIV: (I) standard group: normal oxygen inhalation was applied at the NIV interval; and (II) research group: patients treated with HFNC at the NIV interval. The respective basic data and outcome observation indices were collected.ResultsIn terms of the clinical outcome, the number of NIV treatment days in the research group was lower (P<0.05). At 30 min, 1 h, and 24 h after treatment, the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), oxygenation index (P/F) indices in the research group were higher, while the CO2 partial pressure (PaCO2) was lower (P<0.05). Finally, the 28- and 90-day survival rates were compared between the groups and the results indicated no significant difference in the 28-day survival rates, but the 90-day survival rates of the research group were considerably higher (P<0.05).ConclusionsThe use of HFNC combined with NIV to treat ARF in critically ill patients can effectively improve the ARF-related respiratory indicators in critically ill patients.

Project description:Rationale: The long-term effects of using a high-flow nasal cannula for chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remain unclear. Objectives: To assess whether long-term high-flow nasal cannula use reduces the number of exacerbations and improves other physiological parameters in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: We enrolled 104 participants (aged ⩾40 yr) with daytime hypercapnia (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages 2-4) receiving long-term oxygen therapy (⩾16 h/d for ⩾1 mo) and randomly assigned them to high-flow nasal cannula/long-term oxygen therapy and long-term oxygen therapy groups. The primary endpoint was the moderate or severe exacerbation rate. We compared changes from baseline in arterial blood gas values, peripheral oxygen saturation, pulmonary function, health-related quality-of-life scores, and the 6-minute-walk test. Measurements and Main Results: High-flow nasal cannula use significantly reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (unadjusted mean count 1.0 vs. 2.5, a ratio of the adjusted mean count between groups [95% confidence interval] of 2.85 [1.48-5.47]) and prolonged the duration without moderate or severe exacerbations. The median time to first moderate or severe exacerbation in the long-term oxygen therapy group was 25 (14.1-47.4) weeks; this was not reached in the high-flow nasal cannula/long-term oxygen therapy group. High-flow nasal cannula use significantly improved health-related quality of life scores, peripheral oxygen saturation, and specific pulmonary function parameters. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusions: A high-flow nasal cannula is a reasonable therapeutic option for patients with stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations. Clinical trial registered with www.umin/ac.jp (UMIN000028581) and www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03282019).

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.

Dataset Information

High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula vs. Non-Invasive Ventilation in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula vs. Non-Invasive Ventilation in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets