High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Alnajada A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453312 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Nasal high flow (NHF) has gained popularity among intensivists to manage patients with acute respiratory failure. An important literature has accompanied this evolution. In this review, an international panel of experts assessed potential benefits of NHF in different areas of acute respiratory failure management. Analyses of the physiological effects of NHF indicate flow-dependent improvement in various respiratory function parameters. These beneficial effects allow some patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure to avoid intubation and improve their outcome. They require close monitoring to not delay intubation. Such a delay may worsen outcome. The ROX index may help clinicians decide when to intubate. In immunocompromised patients, NHF reduces the need for intubation but does not impact mortality. Beneficial physiological effects of NHF have also been reported in patients with chronic respiratory failure, suggesting a possible indication in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. When intubation is required, NHF can be used to pre-oxygenate patients either alone or in combination with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Similarly, NHF reduces reintubation alone in low-risk patients and in combination with NIV in high-risk patients. NHF may be used in the emergency department in patients who would not be offered intubation and can be better tolerated than NIV.
| S-EPMC7478440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWhether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding.ResultsOut of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: - 8.2 days; 95% CI - 12.7 to - 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64).ConclusionsThe use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC7876530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO2 <90%, PaO2:FiO2 ratio ?300, PaO2 ?60?mm Hg, or PaCO2 ?45?mm Hg. The intervention is HFNO (humidified oxygen, flow rate ?20?L/min) compared separately to NIV or COT. The critical outcomes are: all-cause mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, intubation/reintubation (days of intubation), intensive care unit admission/transfers, patient comfort and hospital length of stay. The important outcomes are: delirium, 30-day hospital readmissions, barotrauma, compromised nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition), gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge and skin breakdown or pressure ulcers. We will calculate risk ratios and Peto ORs (for rare events) and corresponding 95% CIs for categorical outcomes. Mean and standardised mean difference will be calculated for continuous outcomes. Where possible and appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome. CONCLUSION:This systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019146691.
| S-EPMC7044882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or standard oxygen in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe reviewed randomized controlled trials from CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to February 2016), conference proceedings, and relevant article reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted trial-level data from trials investigating HFNC in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, and pH. Safety outcomes included respiratory arrest, intubation, delirium, and skin breakdown.ResultsFrom 2023 screened citations, we identified seven trials (1771 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. There was no evidence for a mortality difference in patients receiving HFNC vs. NIV and/or standard oxygen (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48, I 2 = 63%, five trials, 1629 patients). In subgroup analyses of HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen individually, mortality differences were not observed. Measures of patient tolerability were heterogeneous. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 6-12 h was significantly lower in patients receiving oxygen via HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen for hypoxemic respiratory failure (MD - 53.34, 95% CI - 71.95 to - 34.72, I 2 = 61%, 1143 patients). There were no differences in pH, PaCO2, or rates of intubation or cardio-respiratory arrest. Delirium and skin breakdown were infrequently reported in included trials.ConclusionsIn patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure HFNC was not associated with a difference in mortality compared to NIV or standard oxygen. Secondary outcomes including dyspnea, tolerance, and safety were not systematically reported. Residual heterogeneity and variable reporting of secondary outcomes limit the conclusions that can be made in this review. Prospective trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are required.
| S-EPMC5644261 | 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:BackgroundSome patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) develop acute exacerbation (AE-IPF) leading to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF); despite conventional supportive therapy, the mortality rate remains extremely high. The aim of this study was to assess how a treatment algorithm incorporating high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy affects the short-term mortality of patients with AE-IPF who develop ARF.Method and designA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted.Patients and interventionsThe study consisted of 17 patients with AE-IPF admitted to a respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) for ARF managed using a treatment algorithm incorporating HFNC. The outcome measure was mortality rate during their stay in the RICU.ResultsImplementation of the treatment algorithm led to a successful outcome in nine patients and to a negative one in eight patients (47.1%) who died within 39 days of being admitted to the RICU. The survival rate was 70.6% (±0.1 %) at 15 days, 52.9% (±0.1%) at 30 days, 35.3% (±0.1%) at 90 days, and 15.6% (±9.73 %) at 365 days. Overall, 4 out of 10 patients who did not respond to conventional oxygen therapy showed a satisfactory response to HFNC.ConclusionsShort-term mortality fell to below 50% when a treatment algorithm incorporating HFNC was implemented in a group of patients with AE-IPF admitted to a RICU for ARF. Patients not responding to conventional oxygen therapy seemed to benefit from HFNC. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplementary material section.
| S-EPMC6557021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe aimed to describe the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure and factors associated with a shift to invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis is a multicenter, observational study from a prospectively collected database of consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) who received HFNO on ICU admission during a 22-week period (March 12-August 13, 2020). Outcomes of interest were factors on the day of ICU admission associated with the need for endotracheal intubation. We used multivariable logistic regression and mixed effects models. A predictive model for endotracheal intubation in patients treated with HFNO was derived and internally validated.ResultsFrom a total of 259 patients initially treated with HFNO, 140 patients (54%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. Baseline non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [odds ratio (OR) 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-2.35], and the ROX index calculated as the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired oxygen fraction divided by respiratory rate (OR 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.72), and pH (OR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24-0.86) were associated with intubation. Hospital site explained 1% of the variability in the likelihood of intubation after initial treatment with HFNO. A predictive model including non-respiratory SOFA score and the ROX index showed excellent performance (AUC 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96).ConclusionsAmong adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 initially treated with HFNO, the SOFA score and the ROX index may help to identify patients with higher likelihood of intubation.
| S-EPMC7934982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAn ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.DesignA multicenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.PatientsForty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.
| S-EPMC7467042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimHigh flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was mostly used in intensive care units (ICUs) with few studies in other departments. We hypothesized that HFNC applied at wards is beneficial for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.Materials and methodsThe study is a single center, randomized controlled study. Inclusion criteria were hypoxemic respiratory failure and hematological malignancy. Patients were randomized to either venturi mask/nasal cannula oxygen treatment or HFNC.ResultsOne hundred patients were included in the study. Median age was 58.5 (18–86) years and APACHE II score was 17 (5–29). HFNC group was 51 patients and the oxygen treatment group 49 patients. P/F ratios were similar between the groups throughout the study period. Endotracheal intubation was required in 10 (20.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group (p = 0.14). A total of 17 (35.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group received noninvasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.97). Median VAS comfort scores at the 2nd and 24th hours were not different between groups. The 28-day mortality rate was 36.7% (18 deaths) in the standard group and 45.0% (23 deaths) in the HFNC group (p = 0.39).ConclusionHFNC applied in wards is not superior to standard oxygen treatment for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.
| S-EPMC8569805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in immunocompromised patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is an alternative to standard oxygen. By providing warmed and humidified gas, HFNO allows the delivery of higher flow rates via nasal cannula devices, with FiO2 values of nearly 100%. Benefits include alleviation of dyspnea and discomfort, decreased respiratory distress and decreased mortality in unselected patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, in preliminary reports, HFNO benefits are controversial in immunocompromised patients in whom it has never been properly evaluated. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial in 30 intensive care units, part of the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique (GRRR-OH). Inclusion criteria will be: (1) adults, (2) known immunosuppression, (3) ARF, (4) oxygen therapy ≥ 6 L/min, (5) written informed consent from patient or proxy. Exclusion criteria will be: (1) imminent death (moribund patient), (2) no informed consent, (3) hypercapnia (PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg), (4) isolated cardiogenic pulmonary edema, (5) pregnancy or breastfeeding, (6) anatomical factors precluding insertion of a nasal cannula, (7) no coverage by the French statutory healthcare insurance system, and (8) post-surgical setting from day 1 to day 6 (patients with ARF occurring after day 6 of surgery can be included). The primary outcome measure is day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes are intubation rate, comfort, dyspnea, respiratory rate, oxygenation, ICU length of stay, and ICU-acquired infections. Based on an expected 30% mortality rate in the standard oxygen group, and 20% in the HFNO group, error rate set at 5%, and a statistical power at 90%, 389 patients are required in each treatment group (778 patients overall). Recruitment period is estimated at 30 months, with 28 days of additional follow-up for the last included patient. DISCUSSION:The HIGH study will be the largest multicenter, randomized controlled trial seeking to demonstrate that survival benefits from HFNO reported in unselected patients also apply to a large immunocompromised population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02739451 . Registered on 15 April 2016.
| S-EPMC5836389 | biostudies-literature