SpO2/FiO2 as a predictor of high flow nasal cannula outcomes in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim GE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242081 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is poorly understood and remains controversial.MethodsWe evaluated a large cohort of patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure at the temporary COVID-19 hospital in Mexico City. The primary outcome was the success rate of HFNC to prevent the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We also evaluated the risk factors associated with HFNC success or failure.ResultsHFNC use effectively prevented IMV in 71.4% of patients [270 of 378 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6-75.8%]. Factors that were significantly different at admission included age, the presence of hypertension, and the Charlson comorbidity index. Predictors of therapy failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI) included the comorbidity-age-lymphocyte count-lactate dehydrogenase (CALL) score at admission (1.27, 1.09-1.47; p < 0.01), Rox index at 1 hour (0.82, 0.7-0.96; p = 0.02), and no prior steroid treatment (0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62; p < 0.0001). Patients with HFNC success rarely required admission to the intensive care unit and had shorter lengths of hospital stay [19/270 (7.0%) and 15.0 (interquartile range, 11-20) days, respectively] than those who required IMV [104/108 (96.3%) and 26.5 (20-36) days, respectively].ConclusionTreating patients with HFNC at admission led to improvement in respiratory parameters in many patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8419547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been recommended as a suitable choice for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure before mechanical ventilation (MV); however, delaying MV with HFNC therapy is still a dilemma between the technique and clinical management during the ongoing pandemic. Methods: Retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC therapy from four hospitals of Wuhan, China. Demographic information and clinical variables before, at, and shortly after HFNC initiation were collected and analyzed. A risk-stratification model of HFNC failure (the need for MV) was developed with the 324 patients of Jin Yin-tan Hospital and validated its accuracy with 69 patients of other hospitals. Results: Among the training cohort, the median duration of HFNC therapy was 6 (range, 3-11), and 147 experienced HFNC failure within 7 days of HFNC initiation. Early predictors of HFNC failure on the basis of a multivariate regression analysis included age older than 60 years [odds ratio (OR), 1.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-3.44; p = 0.027; 2 points], respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX) <5.31 (OR, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.96-9.20; p < 0.001; 5 points) within the first 4 h of HFNC initiation, platelets < 125 × 109/L (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.46-6.35; p = 0.003; 3 points), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) >7.0 pg/mL (OR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.79-6.23; p < 0.001; 3 points) at HFNC initiation. A weighted risk-stratification model of these predictors showed sensitivity of 80.3%, specificity of 71.2% and a better predictive ability than ROX index alone [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.807 vs. 0.779, p < 0.001]. Six points were used as a cutoff value for the risk of HFNC failure stratification. The HFNC success probability of patients in low-risk group (84.2%) was 9.84 times that in the high-risk group (34.8%). In the subsequent validation cohort, the AUC of the model was 0.815 (0.71-0.92). Conclusions: Aged patients with lower ROX index, thrombocytopenia, and elevated IL-6 values are at increased risk of HFNC failure. The risk-stratification models accurately predicted the HFNC failure and early stratified COVID-19 patients with HFNC therapy into relevant risk categories.
| S-EPMC7793962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy provides effective respiratory management in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the efficacy and tolerability of HFNC for patients with acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (AE-ILD) have not been established. This study was performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of HFNC for patients with AE-ILD and identify the early predictors of the outcome of HFNC treatment.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with AE-ILD who underwent HFNC. Overall survival, the success rate of HFNC treatment, adverse events, temporary interruption of treatment, discontinuation of treatment at the patient's request, and predictors of the outcome of HFNC treatment were evaluated.ResultsA total of 66 patients were analyzed. Of these, 26 patients (39.4%) showed improved oxygenation and were successfully withdrawn from HFNC. The 30-day survival rate was 48.5%. No discontinuations at the patient's request were observed, and no serious adverse events occurred. The pulse oximetric saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FIO2) ratio 24 h after initiating HFNC showed high prediction accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.802) for successful HFNC treatment. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, an SpO2/FIO2 ratio of at least 170.9 at 24 h after initiation was significantly associated with successful HFNC treatment (odds ratio, 51.3; 95% confidence interval, 6.13-430; p < 0.001).ConclusionsHFNC was well tolerated in patients with AE-ILD, suggesting that HFNC is a reasonable respiratory management for these patients. The SpO2/FIO2 ratio 24 h after initiating HFNC was a good predictor of successful HFNC treatment. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC7016313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStandard high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support device widely used to manage post-extubation hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) due to greater comfort, oxygenation, alveolar recruitment, humidification, and reduction of dead space, as compared to conventional oxygen therapy. On the contrary, the effects of the new asymmetrical HFNC interface (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) is still under discussion. Our aim is investigating whether the use of asymmetrical HFNC interface presents any relevant difference, compared with the standard configuration, on lung aeration (as assessed by end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) measured by electrical impedance tomography (EIT)), diaphragm ultrasound thickening fraction (TFdi) and excursion (DE), ventilatory efficiency (estimated by corrected minute ventilation (MV)), gas exchange, dyspnea, and comfort.MethodsPilot physiological crossover randomized controlled study enrolling 20 adults admitted to the Intensive Care unit, invasively ventilated for at least 24 h, and developing post-extubation hARF, i.e., PaO2/set FiO2 < 300 mmHg during Venturi mask (VM) within 120 min after extubation. Each HFNC configuration was applied in a randomized 60 min sequence at a flow rate of 60 L/min.ResultsGlobal EELI, TFdi, DE, ventilatory efficiency, gas exchange and dyspnea were not significantly different, while comfort was greater during asymmetrical HFNC support, as compared to standard interface (10 [7-10] and 8 [7-9], p-value 0.044).ConclusionsIn post-extubation hARF, the use of the asymmetrical HFNC, as compared to standard HFNC interface, slightly improved patient comfort without affecting lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea and gas exchange.Clinical trial numberClinicalTrial.gov.Registration numberNCT05838326 (01/05/2023).New & noteworthyThe asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) provides greater comfort as compared to standard interface; while their performance in term of lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea, and gas exchange is similar.
| S-EPMC10775427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Usually, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is indicated for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Although only a few researches have examined the effectiveness of HFNC therapy for respiratory failure with hypercapnia, this therapy is often performed under such conditions for various reasons. We investigated the effectiveness of HFNC therapy for AHRF patients with hypercapnia compared to those without hypercapnia. METHODS:All consecutive patients receiving HFNC therapy between January 2012 and June 2018 at a university hospital were enrolled and classified into nonhypercapnic and hypercapnic groups. We compared the outcomes of both groups and adjusted the outcomes with propensity score matching. RESULTS:A total of 862 patients were enrolled, of which 202 were included in the hypercapnic group. HFNC weaning success rates were higher, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality was lower in the hypercapnic group than in the nonhypercapnic group (all P < 0.05). However, no statistical differences in HFNC weaning success (adjusted P = 0.623, matched P = 0.593), ICU mortality (adjusted P = 0.463, matched P = 0.195), and hospital mortality (adjusted P = 0.602, matched P = 0.579) were noted from the propensity-adjusted and propensity-matched analyses. Additionally, in the propensity score-matched subgroup analysis (according to chronic lung diseases and causes of HFNC application), there was also no significant difference in outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION:In AHRF with underlying conditions, HFNC therapy might be helpful for patients with hypercapnia. Large prospective and randomized controlled trials are required for firm conclusions.
| S-EPMC7073320 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7647788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a recent technique delivering a high flow of heated and humidified gas. HFNC is simpler to use and apply than noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and appears to be a good alternative treatment for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). HFNC is better tolerated than NIV, delivers high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), generates a low level of positive pressure and provides washout of dead space in the upper airways, thereby improving mechanical pulmonary properties and unloading inspiratory muscles during ARF. A recent multicenter randomized controlled trial showed benefits of HFNC concerning mortality and intubation in severe patients with hypoxemic ARF. In management of patients with hypoxemic ARF, NIV results have been conflicting. Despite improved oxygenation, NIV delivered with face mask may generate high tidal volumes and subsequent ventilator-induced lung injury. An approach applying NIV with a helmet, high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and low pressure support (PS) levels seems to open new opportunities in patients with hypoxemic ARF. However, a large-scale randomized controlled study is needed to assess and compare this approach with HFNC.
| S-EPMC5537116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE:Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS:High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.
| S-EPMC7294988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOptimal flow settings during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy are unknown. We investigated the optimal flow settings during HFNC therapy based on breathing pattern and tidal inspiratory flows in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF).MethodsWe conducted a prospective clinical study in adult hypoxemic patients treated by HFNC with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) ≥ 0.4. Patient's peak tidal inspiratory flow (PTIF) was measured and HFNC flows were set to match individual PTIF and then increased by 10 L/min every 5-10 min up to 60 L/min. FIO2 was titrated to maintain pulse oximetry (SpO2) of 90-97%. SpO2/FIO2, respiratory rate (RR), ROX index [(SpO2/FIO2)/RR], and patient comfort were recorded after 5-10 min on each setting. We also conducted an in vitro study to explore the relationship between the HFNC flows and the tracheal FIO2, peak inspiratory and expiratory pressures.ResultsForty-nine patients aged 58.0 (SD 14.1) years were enrolled. At enrollment, HFNC flow was set at 45 (38, 50) L/min, with an FIO2 at 0.62 (0.16) to obtain an SpO2/FIO2 of 160 (40). Mean PTIF was 34 (9) L/min. An increase in HFNC flows up to two times of the individual patient's PTIF, incrementally improved oxygenation but the ROX index plateaued with HFNC flows of 1.34-1.67 times the individual PTIF. In the in vitro study, when the HFNC flow was set higher than PTIF, tracheal peak inspiratory and expiratory pressures increased as HFNC flow increased but the FIO2 did not change.ConclusionMean PTIF values in most patients with AHRF were between 30 and 40 L/min. We observed improvement in oxygenation with HFNC flows set above patient PTIF. Thus, a pragmatic approach to set optimal flows in patients with AHRF would be to initiate HFNC flow at 40 L/min and titrate the flow based on improvement in ROX index and patient tolerance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03738345). Registered on November 13th, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03738345?term=NCT03738345&draw=2&rank=1.
| S-EPMC8626729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In immunocompromised patients, acute respiratory failure (ARF) is associated with high mortality, particularly when invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is required. In patients with severe hypoxemia, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy has been used as an alternative to delivery of oxygen via a Venturi mask. Our objective in the present study was to compare HFNO and Venturi mask oxygen in immunocompromised patients with ARF.We conducted a multicenter, parallel-group randomized controlled trial in four intensive care units. Inclusion criteria were hypoxemic ARF and immunosuppression, defined as at least one of the following: solid or hematological malignancy, steroid or other immunosuppressant drug therapy, and HIV infection. Exclusion criteria were hypercapnia, previous IMV, and immediate need for IMV or noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Patients were randomized to 2 h of HFNO or Venturi mask oxygen.The primary endpoint was a need for IMV or NIV during the 2-h oxygen therapy period. Secondary endpoints were comfort, dyspnea, and thirst, as assessed hourly using a 0-10 visual analogue scale. We randomized 100 consecutive patients, including 84 with malignancies, to HFNO (n?=?52) or Venturi mask oxygen (n?=?48). During the 2-h study treatment period, 12 patients required IMV or NIV, and we found no significant difference between the two groups (15 % with HFNO and 8 % with the Venturi mask, P?=?0.36). None of the secondary endpoints differed significantly between the two groups.In immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic ARF, a 2-h trial with HFNO improved neither mechanical ventilatory assistance nor patient comfort compared with oxygen delivered via a Venturi mask. However, the study was underpowered because of the low event rate and the one-sided hypothesis.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02424773 . Registered 20 April 2015.
| S-EPMC4629403 | biostudies-literature