Dataset Information

High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation as initial ventilatory strategy in COPD exacerbation: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO₂ clearance after 2 h of treatment.

Methods

We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25-7.35, PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO₂ from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO₂ at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes.

Results

Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO₂ reduction from baseline to 2 h were - 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and - 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO₂ reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO₂ reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis.

Conclusions

HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO₂ after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD.

Trial registration

The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

SUBMITTER: Cortegiani A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7734463 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can improve ventilatory function in patients with acute COPD exacerbation. However, its effect on clinical outcomes remains uncertain.MethodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted from July 2017 to December 2020 in 16 tertiary hospitals in China. Patients with acute COPD exacerbation with mild hypercapnia (pH ≥ 7.35 and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide > 45 mmHg) were randomly assigned to either HFNC or conventional oxygen therapy. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who met the criteria for intubation during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included treatment failure (intolerance and need for non-invasive or invasive ventilation), length of hospital stay, hospital cost, mortality, and readmission at day 90.ResultsAmong 337 randomized patients (median age, 70.0 years; 280 men [83.1%]; median pH 7.399; arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide 51 mmHg), 330 completed the trial. 4/158 patients on HFNC and 1/172 patient on conventional oxygen therapy met the criteria for intubation (P = 0.198). Patients progressed to NPPV in both groups were comparable (15 [9.5%] in the HFNC group vs. 22 [12.8%] in the conventional oxygen therapy group; P = 0.343). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, HFNC yielded a significantly longer median length of hospital stay (9.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-13.0] vs. 8.0 [interquartile range, 7.0-11.0] days) and a higher median hospital cost (approximately $2298 [interquartile range, $1613-$3782] vs. $2005 [interquartile range, $1439-$2968]). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes between groups.ConclusionsIn this multi-center randomized controlled study, HFNC compared to conventional oxygen therapy did not reduce need for intubation among acute COPD exacerbation patients with mild hypercapnia. The future studies should focus on patients with acute COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.35). However, because the primary outcome rate was well below expected, the study was underpowered to show a meaningful difference between the two treatment groups.Trial registrationNCT03003559 . Registered on December 28, 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is indicated to treat respiratory acidosis due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent nonrandomized studies also demonstrated some physiological effects of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in COPD patients. We designed a prospective, unblinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to assess the noninferiority of HFNT compared to NIV with respect to the reduction of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in patients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis. METHODS:We will enroll adult patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, as defined by arterial pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2???55?mmHg. Patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive NIV or HFNT. NIV will be applied through a mask with a dedicated ventilator in pressure support mode. Positive end-expiratory pressure will be set at 3-5 cmH2O with inspiratory support to obtain a tidal volume between 6 and 8?ml/kg of ideal body weight. HFNT will be initially set at a temperature of 37?°C and a flow of 60?L/min. At 2 and 6?h we will assess arterial blood gases, vital parameters, respiratory rate, treatment intolerance and failure, need for endotracheal intubation, time spent under mechanical ventilation (both invasive and NIV), intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Based on an ? error of 5% and a ? error of 80%, with a standard deviation for PaCO2 equal to 15?mmHg and a noninferiority limit of 10?mmHg, we computed a sample size of 56 patients. Considering potential drop-outs and nonparametric analysis, the final computed sample size was 80 patients (40 per group). DISCUSSION:HFNT is more comfortable than NIV in COPD patients recovering from an episode of exacerbation. If HFNT would not be inferior to NIV, HFNT could be considered as an alternative to NIV to treat COPD patients with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03370666 . Registered on December 12, 2017.