The use of high-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in hematological malignancy patients with acute respiratory failure in hematology wards
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background/aim
High 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 methods
The 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.Results
One 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).Conclusion
HFNC applied in wards is not superior to standard oxygen treatment for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.
SUBMITTER: Alptekinoglu Mendil N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8569805 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:ImportanceHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy is increasingly used for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF).ObjectiveTo determine whether high-flow oxygen therapy decreases mortality among immunocompromised patients with AHRF compared with standard oxygen therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThe HIGH randomized clinical trial enrolled 776 adult immunocompromised patients with AHRF (Pao2 <60 mm Hg or Spo2 <90% on room air, or tachypnea >30/min or labored breathing or respiratory distress, and need for oxygen ≥6 L/min) at 32 intensive care units (ICUs) in France between May 19, 2016, and December 31, 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to continuous high-flow oxygen therapy (n = 388) or to standard oxygen therapy (n = 388).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes included intubation and mechanical ventilation by day 28, Pao2:Fio2 ratio over the 3 days after intubation, respiratory rate, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, ICU-acquired infections, and patient comfort and dyspnea.ResultsOf 778 randomized patients (median age, 64 [IQR, 54-71] years; 259 [33.3%] women), 776 (99.7%) completed the trial. At randomization, median respiratory rate was 33/min (IQR, 28-39) vs 32 (IQR, 27-38) and Pao2:Fio2 was 136 (IQR, 96-187) vs 128 (IQR, 92-164) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Median SOFA score was 6 (IQR, 4-8) in both groups. Mortality on day 28 was not significantly different between groups (35.6% vs 36.1%; difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -7.3% to +6.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.24]; P = .94). Intubation rate was not significantly different between groups (38.7% vs 43.8%; difference, -5.1% [95% CI, -12.3% to +2.0%]). Compared with controls, patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy had a higher Pao2:Fio2 (150 vs 119; difference, 19.5 [95% CI, 4.4 to 34.6]) and lower respiratory rate after 6 hours (25/min vs 26/min; difference, -1.8/min [95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2]). No significant difference was observed in ICU length of stay (8 vs 6 days; difference, 0.6 [95% CI, -1.0 to +2.2]), ICU-acquired infections (10.0% vs 10.6%; difference, -0.6% [95% CI, -4.6 to +4.1]), hospital length of stay (24 vs 27 days; difference, -2 days [95% CI, -7.3 to +3.3]), or patient comfort and dyspnea scores.Conclusions and relevanceAmong critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, high-flow oxygen therapy did not significantly decrease day-28 mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02739451.
| S-EPMC6583581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial.ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs).Design, setting, and participantsThe SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events.ResultsAmong the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.
| S-EPMC9516287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHigh-flow nasal oxygen may prevent postextubation respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). The combination of high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be an optimal strategy of ventilation to avoid reintubation.ObjectiveTo determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen with prophylactic NIV applied immediately after extubation could reduce the rate of reintubation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone, in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial conducted from April 2017 to January 2018 among 641 patients at high risk of extubation failure (ie, older than 65 years or with an underlying cardiac or respiratory disease) at 30 ICUs in France; follow-up was until April 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to high-flow nasal oxygen alone (n = 306) or high-flow nasal oxygen alternating with NIV (n = 342) immediately after extubation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients reintubated at day 7; secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure at day 7, reintubation rates up until ICU discharge, and ICU mortality.ResultsAmong 648 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 70 [10] years; 219 women [34%]), 641 patients completed the trial. The reintubation rate at day 7 was 11.8% (95% CI, 8.4%-15.2%) (40/339) with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 18.2% (95% CI, 13.9%-22.6%) (55/302) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -6.4% [95% CI, -12.0% to -0.9%]; P = .02). Among the 11 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. The proportion of patients with postextubation respiratory failure at day 7 (21% vs 29%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -15.2% to -1.8%]; P = .01) and reintubation rates up until ICU discharge (12% vs 20%, difference -7.4% [95% CI, -13.2% to -1.8%]; P = .009) were significantly lower with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. ICU mortality rates were not significantly different: 6% with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 9% with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -2.4% [95% CI, -6.7% to 1.7%]; P = .25).Conclusions and relevanceIn mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of extubation failure, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen with NIV immediately after extubation significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03121482.
| S-EPMC6802261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula (HFNC) provides adequate oxygenation and can be an alternative to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of HFNC versus NIV in hypercapnic respiratory failure. Patients (n = 40) who were admitted to the Emergency Department of Alexandra Hospital due to hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO2 ? 45 mmHg) were randomized assigned into two groups, i.e., an intervention group (use of HFNC, n = 20) and a control group (use of NIV, n = 20). During their hospitalization in the Intensive Care Unit, vital signs (respiratory and heart rate, arterial blood pressure) and arterial blood gases (ABG) were closely monitored on admission, after 24 h and at discharge. No difference between the two groups regarding the duration of hospitalization and the use of HFNC or NIV was observed (p > 0.05). On admission, the two groups did not differ in terms of gender, age, body mass index, APACHE score, predicted death rate, heart rate, arterial blood pressure and arterial blood gases (p > 0.05). Respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (p = 0.023). At discharge, partial carbon dioxide arterial pressure (PaCO2) in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (50.8 ± 9.4 mmHg versus 59.6 ± 13.9 mmHg, p = 0.024). The lowerPaCO2 in the HFNC group than in the NIV group indicated that HFNC was superior to NIV in the management of hypercapnic respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC7459687 | biostudies-literature
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:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) may be an attractive first-line ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients. However, HNFC use for the management of COVID-19 patients and risk factors for HFNC failure remain to be determined.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first (Mars-May 2020) and second (August 2020- February 202) French pandemic waves. Patients with limitations for intubation were excluded. HFNC failure was defined as the need for intubation after ICU admission. The impact of HFNC use was analyzed in the whole cohort and after constructing a propensity score. Risk factors for HNFC failure were identified through a landmark time-dependent cause-specific Cox model. The ability of the 6-h ROX index to detect HFNC failure was assessed by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Results200 patients were included: HFNC was used in 114(57%) patients, non-invasive ventilation in 25(12%) patients and 145(72%) patients were intubated with a median delay of 0 (0-2) days after ICU admission. Overall, 78(68%) patients had HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had a higher ICU mortality rate (34 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) than those without. At landmark time of 48 and 72 h, SAPS-2 score, extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75% and HFNC duration (cause specific hazard ratio (CSH) = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04-0.28), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 48 h and CSH = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.23), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 72 h) were associated with HFNC failure. The 6-h ROX index was lower in patients with HFNC failure but could not reliably predicted HFNC failure with an area under ROC curve of 0.65 (95% CI(0.52-0.78), p = 0.02). In the matched cohort, HFNC use was associated with a lower risk of intubation (CSH = 0.32, 95% CI (0.19-0.57), p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn critically-ill COVID-19 patients, while HFNC use as first-line ventilatory support was associated with a lower risk of intubation, more than half of patients had HFNC failure. Risk factors for HFNC failure were SAPS-2 score and extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75%. The risk of HFNC failure could not be predicted by the 6-h ROX index but decreased after a 48-h HFNC duration.
| S-EPMC9719644 | 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:Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO 2 >6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO 2 clearance, the ability to communicate and comfort. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine whether HFNT in AT2RF improves 1) PaCO 2, 2) clinical and patient-centred outcomes and 3) to assess potential harms. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (January 1999-January 2021). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing HFNT with low flow nasal oxygen (LFO) or NIV were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Ottawa-Newcastle scale for cohort studies. Results: From 727 publications reviewed, four RCTs and one cohort study (n=425) were included. In three trials of HFNT vs NIV, comparing PaCO 2 (kPa) at last follow-up time point, there was a significant reduction at four hours (1 RCT; HFNT median 6.7, IQR 5.6 - 7.7 vs NIV median 7.6, IQR 6.3 - 9.3) and no significant difference at 24-hours or five days. Comparing HFNT with LFO, there was no significant difference at 30-minutes. There was no difference in intubation or mortality. Conclusions: This review identified a small number of studies with low to very low certainty of evidence. A reduction of PaCO 2 at an early time point of four hours post-intervention was demonstrated in one small RCT. Significant limitations of the included studies were lack of adequately powered outcomes and clinically relevant time-points and small sample size. Accordingly, systematic review cannot recommend the use of HFNT as the initial management strategy for AT2RF and trials adequately powered to detect clinical and patient-relevant outcomes are urgently warranted.
| S-EPMC8453312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been widely used in clinic, especially in perioperative period. Many studies have discussed the role of HFNO in pre- and apneic oxygenation, but their results are controversial. Our study aimed to examine the effectiveness of HFNO in pre- and apneic oxygenation by a meta-analysis of RCTs.MethodsEMBASE, PUBMED, and COCHRANE LIBRARY databases were searched from inception to July 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on the effectiveness of HFNO versus standard facemask ventilation (FMV) in pre- and apenic oxygenation. Studies involving one of the following six indicators: (1) Arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), (2) End expiratory oxygen concentration (EtO2), (3) Safe apnoea time, (4) Minimum pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2min), (5) Oxygenation (O2) desaturation, (6) End expiratory carbon dioxide (EtCO2) or Arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure(PaCO2) were included. Due to the source of clinical heterogeneity in the observed indicators in this study, we adopt random-effects model for analysis, and express it as the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a confidence interval of 95% (95%CI). We conducted a risk assessment of bias for eligible studies and assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsFourteen RCTs and 1012 participants were finally included. We found the PaO2 was higher in HFNO group than FMV group with a MD (95% CI) of 57.38 mmHg (25.65 to 89.10; p = 0.0004) after preoxygenation and the safe apnoea time was significantly longer with a MD (95% CI) of 86.93 s (44.35 to 129.51; p < 0.0001) during anesthesia induction. There were no significant statistical difference in the minimum SpO2, CO2 accumulation, EtO2 and O2 desaturation rate during anesthesia induction between the two groups.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that HFNO should be considered as an oxygenation tool for patients during anesthesia induction. Compared with FMV, continuous use of HFNO during anesthesia induction can significantly improve oxygenation and prolong safe apnoea time in surgical patients.
| S-EPMC8985355 | biostudies-literature