Dataset Information

Noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal cannula oxygen for preoxygenation before intubation in patients with obesity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Critically ill patients with obesity may have an increased risk of difficult intubation and subsequent severe hypoxemia. We hypothesized that pre-oxygenation with noninvasive ventilation before intubation as compared with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen may decrease the risk of severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity.

Methods

Post hoc subgroup analysis of critically ill patients with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg·m^-2) from a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen before intubation of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO₂/FiO₂ < 300 mm Hg). The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (pulse oximetry < 80%) during the intubation procedure.

Results

Among the 313 patients included in the original trial, 91 (29%) had obesity with a mean body mass index of 35 ± 5 kg·m^-2. Patients with obesity were more likely to experience an episode of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure than patients without obesity: 34% (31/91) vs. 22% (49/222); difference, 12%; 95% CI 1 to 23%; P = 0.03. Among patients with obesity, 40 received preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and 51 with high-flow nasal oxygen. Severe hypoxemia occurred in 15 patients (37%) with noninvasive ventilation and 16 patients (31%) with high-flow nasal oxygen (difference, 6%; 95% CI - 13 to 25%; P = 0.54). The lowest pulse oximetry values during intubation procedure were 87% [interquartile range, 77-93] with noninvasive ventilation and 86% [78-92] with high-flow nasal oxygen (P = 0.98). After multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity were intubation difficulty scale > 5 points and respiratory primary failure as reason for admission.

Conclusions

Patients with obesity and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure had an increased risk of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure as compared to patients without obesity. However, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation may not reduce this risk compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. Trial registration Clinical trial number: NCT02668458 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a relatively new therapy used in adults with respiratory failure. Whether it is superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether HFNC was superior to either COT or NIV in adult acute respiratory failure patients.MethodsA review of the literature was conducted from the electronic databases from inception up to 20 October 2016. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with COT or HFNC with NIV were included. The intubation rate was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included the mechanical ventilation rate, the rate of escalation of respiratory support and mortality.ResultsEleven studies that enrolled 3459 patients (HFNC, n?=?1681) were included. There were eight studies comparing HFNC with COT, two comparing HFNC with NIV, and one comparing all three. HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, P?=?0.002), mechanical ventilation rate (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.97, P?=?0.04) and the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67, P?<?0.0001) when compared to COT. There was no difference in mortality between HFNC and COT utilization (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, P?=?0.96). When HFNC was compared to NIV, there was no difference in the intubation rate (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39, P?=?0.84), the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28, P?=?0.97) or mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.68, P?=?0.65).ConclusionsCompared to COT, HFNC reduced the rate of intubation, mechanical ventilation and the escalation of respiratory support. When compared to NIV, HFNC showed no better outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are necessary to prove our findings.Trial registrationPROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on May 25, 2016 registration no. CRD42016039581 .

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio.ResultsAmong 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality.ConclusionsHospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).