Dataset Information

Comparison of outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in patients with hypoxemia and various APACHE II scores after extubation.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

The 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).

Conclusion

There 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.

SUBMITTER: Shang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013886 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raging around the world, the effectiveness of respiratory support treatment has dominated people's field of vision. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and value of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for COVID-19 patients.MethodsA comprehensive systematic review via PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, WHO database, China Biology Medicine Disc (SINOMED), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the results and risk of bias. The primary outcome is the number of deaths at day 28. The secondary outcomes are the occurrence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the number of deaths (no time-limited), length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, ventilator-free days, and oxygenation index [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO2)] at 24 h.ResultsIn total, nine studies [one randomized controlled trial (RCT), seven retrospective studies, and one prospective study] totaling 1582 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the incidence of IMV, number of deaths (no time-limited), and length of ICU stay were not statistically significant in the HFNC group compared with the NIV group (ps = 0.71, 0.31, and 0.33, respectively). Whereas the HFNC group performed significant advantages in terms of the number of deaths at day 28, length of hospital stay and oxygenation index (p < 0.05). Only in the ventilator-free days did NIV show advantages over the HFNC group (p < 0.0001).ConclusionFor COVID-19 patients, the use of HFNC therapy is associated with the reduction of the number of deaths at day 28 and length of hospital stay, and can significantly improve oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) at 24 h. However, there was no favorable between the HFNC and NIV groups in the occurrence of IMV. NIV group was superior only in terms of ventilator-free days.

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.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is recommended by some scholars as an optimized respiratory support method for blunt chest trauma (BCT) patients. The basis of this recommendation is limited, however, and the efficacy of HFNC or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in BCT patients has not yet been rigorously explored. This study aims to determine if HFNC is non-inferior to NIV in reducing treatment failure in moderate to severe BCT patients with acute respiratory failure.MethodsThis will be a prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Moderate to severe BCT patients with acute respiratory failure (100mmHg < PaO2/FiO2 ≦ 200mmHg) who do not need immediate intubation will be randomized to HFNC or NIV within 48 h after trauma. The primary outcome is treatment failure, defined as invasive ventilation or a switch in respiratory support modality (from HFNC to NIV or vice-versa). Secondary outcomes include arterial blood gas analysis and vital signs at 2 and 12 h after initiating HFNC or NIV treatment, as well as patients' comfort scores, dyspnea scores, daily number of nursing airway care interventions, incidence of pneumonia or pneumothorax, facial skin breakdown, duration of NIV or HFNC, 28-day mortality, and total ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Based on an α error of 5% and a β error of 80%, with a non-inferiority limit of 9%, a sample size of 562 will be required to accomplish the trial goal, considering potential patient dropouts and nonparametric analysis.DiscussionWe hypothesize that HFNC will be non-inferior to NIV in reducing treatment failure in moderate to severe BCT with acute respiratory failure. The results should be useful for judging whether HFNC could be an effective alternative to NIV to treat moderate to severe BCT patients, especially for those who do not tolerate or have contraindications for NIV.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800017313 . Registered on July 24, 2018.