Dataset Information

Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several randomized clinical trials have shown that non-invasive ventilation (NIV) applied immediately after extubation may prevent reintubation in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. However, most of studies included patients with chronic respiratory disorders as well as patients without underlying respiratory disease. To date, no study has shown decreased risk of reintubation with prophylactic NIV after extubation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesized that prophylactic NIV after extubation may decrease the risk of reintubation in COPD patients as compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of COPD patients included in a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing prophylactic use of NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone immediately after extubation.

Results

Among the 651 patients included in the original study, 150 (23%) had underlying COPD including 86 patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 64 patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. The reintubation rate was 13% (11 out of 86 patients) with NIV and 27% (17 out of 64 patients) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference, - 14% (95% CI - 27% to - 1%); p?=?0.03]. Whereas reintubation rates were significantly lower with NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone at 72 h and until ICU discharge, mortality in ICU did not differ between groups: 6% (5/86) with NIV vs. 9% (6/64) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference - 4% (95% CI - 14% to 5%); p?=?0.40].

Conclusions

In COPD patients, prophylactic NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the trial registration number NCT03121482 (20 April 2017).

SUBMITTER: Thille AW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7871306 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Thille Arnaud W AW Coudroy Rémi R Nay Mai-Anh MA Gacouin Arnaud A Decavèle Maxens M Sonneville Romain R Beloncle François F Girault Christophe C Dangers Laurence L Lautrette Alexandre A Levrat Quentin Q Rouzé Anahita A Vivier Emmanuel E Lascarrou Jean-Baptiste JB Ricard Jean-Damien JD Razazi Keyvan K Barberet Guillaume G Lebert Christine C Ehrmann Stephan S Massri Alexandre A Bourenne Jeremy J Pradel Gael G Bailly Pierre P Terzi Nicolas N Dellamonica Jean J Lacave Guillaume G Robert René R Ragot Stéphanie S Frat Jean-Pierre JP

Annals of intensive care 20210209 1

<h4>Background</h4>Several randomized clinical trials have shown that non-invasive ventilation (NIV) applied immediately after extubation may prevent reintubation in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. However, most of studies included patients with chronic respiratory disorders as well as patients without underlying respiratory disease. To date, no study has shown decreased risk of reintubation with prophylactic NIV after extubation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary dis ...[more]

PMID: 33559765

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:BACKGROUND:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is being increasingly used to prevent post-extubation hypoxemic respiratory failure and reintubation. However, evidence to support the use of HFNC in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure after extubation is limited. This study was conducted to test if HFNC is non-inferior to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing post-extubation treatment failure in COPD patients previously intubated for hypercapnic respiratory failure. METHODS:COPD patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure who were already receiving invasive ventilation were randomized to HFNC or NIV at extubation at two large tertiary academic teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either resumption of invasive ventilation or switching to the other study treatment modality (NIV for patients in the NFNC group or vice versa). RESULTS:Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group or NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 44 patients in the HFNC group and 42 patients in the NIV group were included in the analysis. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.7% and 28.6% in the NIV group-risk difference of -?5.8% (95% CI, -?23.8-12.4%, p?=?0.535), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior margin of 9%. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure showed that treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group, with a risk difference of -?50.0% (95% CI, -?74.6 to -?12.9%, p?=?0.015). One hour after extubation, the mean respiratory rates of both groups were faster than their baseline levels before extubation (p?<?0.050). Twenty-four hours after extubation, the respiratory rate of the HFNC group had returned to baseline, but the NIV group was still higher than the baseline. Forty-eight hours after extubation, the respiratory rates of both groups were not significantly different from the baseline. The average number of daily airway care interventions in the NIV group was 7 (5-9.3), which was significantly higher than 6 (4-7) times in the HFNC group (p?=?0.006). The comfort score and incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown of the HFNC group was also significantly better than that of the NIV group [7 (6-8) vs 5 (4-7), P?<?0.001] and [0 vs 9.6%, p?=?0.027], respectively. CONCLUSION:Among COPD patients with severe hypercapnic respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation, the use of HFNC after extubation did not result in increased rates of treatment failure compared with NIV. HFNC also had better tolerance and comfort than NIV. TRIAL REGISTRATION:chictr.org ( ChiCTR1800018530 ). Registered on 22 September 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.

Project description:BackgroundProphylactic high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy can decrease the risk of extubation failure. It is frequently used in the postextubation phase alone or in combination with noninvasive ventilation. However, its physiological effects in this setting have not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to determine comprehensively the effects of HFNC applied after extubation on respiratory effort, diaphragm activity, gas exchange, ventilation distribution, and cardiovascular biomarkers.MethodsThis was a prospective randomized crossover physiological study in critically ill patients comparing 1 h of HFNC versus 1 h of standard oxygen after extubation. The main inclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation for at least 48 h due to acute respiratory failure, and extubation after a successful spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). We measured respiratory effort through esophageal/transdiaphragmatic pressures, and diaphragm electrical activity (ΔEAdi). Lung volumes and ventilation distribution were estimated by electrical impedance tomography. Arterial and central venous blood gases were analyzed, as well as cardiac stress biomarkers.ResultsWe enrolled 22 patients (age 59 ± 17 years; 9 women) who had been intubated for 8 ± 6 days before extubation. Respiratory effort was significantly lower with HFNC than with standard oxygen therapy, as evidenced by esophageal pressure swings (5.3 [4.2-7.1] vs. 7.2 [5.6-10.3] cmH2O; p < 0.001), pressure-time product (85 [67-140] vs. 156 [114-238] cmH2O*s/min; p < 0.001) and ΔEAdi (10 [7-13] vs. 14 [9-16] µV; p = 0.022). In addition, HFNC induced increases in end-expiratory lung volume and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, decreases in respiratory rate and ventilatory ratio, while no changes were observed in systemic hemodynamics, Troponin T, or in amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide.ConclusionsProphylactic application of HFNC after extubation provides substantial respiratory support and unloads respiratory muscles. Trial registration January 15, 2021. NCT04711759.

Dataset Information

Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets