Dataset Information

High-Flow Oxygen Therapy Application in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients With Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of high-flow oxygen implementation on the respiratory rate as a first-line ventilation support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Design

Multicenter, prospective, analytic observational case series study.

Setting

Five ICUs in Argentina, between August 2018 and September 2019.

Patients

Patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who had been admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, were entered in the study.

Interventions

High-flow oxygen therapy through nasal cannula delivered using high-velocity nasal insufflation.

Measurements and main results

Forty patients were studied, 62.5% severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. After the first hour of high-flow nasal cannula implementation, there was a significant decrease of respiratory rate compared with baseline values, with a 27% decline (29 vs 21 breaths/min; p < 0.001). Furthermore, a significant reduction of Paco₂ (57 vs 52 mm Hg [7.6 vs 6.9 kPa]; p < 0.001) was observed. The high-flow nasal cannula application failed in 18% patients. In this group, the respiratory rate, pH, and Paco₂ showed no significant change during the first hour in these patients.

Conclusions

High-flow oxygen therapy through nasal cannula delivered using high-velocity nasal insufflation was an effective tool for reducing respiratory rate in these chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Early determination and subsequent monitoring of clinical and blood gas parameters may help predict the outcome.

SUBMITTER: Plotnikow GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7886497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of ward-based noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) unrelated to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes and failure rates associated with NIV application in the ward-based setting for patients with AHRF unrelated to COPD.MethodsA multicentre, retrospective cohort study of patients with AHRF unrelated to COPD was conducted. COPD was not the main reason for hospital admission, treated with ward-based NIV between February 2004 and December 2018. All AHRF patients were eligible; exclusion criteria comprised COPD patients, age < 18 years, pre-NIV pH < 7.35, or a lack of pre-NIV blood gas. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome; univariable and multivariable models were constructed. The obesity-related AHRF group included patients with AHRF due to obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS), and the non-obesity-related AHRF group included patients with AHRF due to pneumonia, bronchiectasis, neuromuscular disease, or fluid overload.ResultsIn total, 479 patients were included in the analysis; 80.2% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Obesity-related AHRF was the indication for NIV in 39.2% of all episodes and was the aetiology with the highest rate of survival to hospital discharge (93.1%). In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality were increased age (odds ratio, 95% CI: 1.034, 1.017-1.051, P < 0.001) and pneumonia on admission (5.313, 2.326-12.131, P < 0.001). In the obesity-related AHRF group, pre-NIV pH < 7.15 was associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality (7.800, 1.843-33.013, P=0.005); however, a pre-NIV pH 7.15-7.25 was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (2.035, 0.523-7.915, P=0.305).ConclusionPre-NIV pH and age have been identified as important predictors of surviving ward-based NIV treatment. Moreover, these data support the use of NIV in ward-based settings for obesity-related AHRF patients with pre-NIV pH thresholds down to 7.15. However, future controlled trials are required to confirm the effectiveness of NIV use outside critical care settings for obesity-related AHRF.

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: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.