Dataset Information

High-flow oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation: a randomised physiological crossover study of alveolar recruitment in acute respiratory failure.

ABSTRACT: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has recently shown clinical benefits in hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) patients, while the value of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) remains debated. The primary end-point was to compare alveolar recruitment using global end-expiratory electrical lung impedance (EELI) between HFNC and NIV. Secondary end-points compared regional EELI, lung volumes (global and regional tidal volume variation (V T)), respiratory parameters, haemodynamic tolerance, dyspnoea and patient comfort between HFNC and NIV, relative to face mask (FM). A prospective randomised crossover physiological study was conducted in patients with hypoxaemic ARF due to pneumonia. They received alternately HFNC, NIV and FM. 16 patients were included. Global EELI was 4083 with NIV and 2921 with HFNC (p=0.4). Compared to FM, NIV and HFNC significantly increased global EELI by 1810.5 (95% CI 857-2646) and 826 (95% CI 399.5-2361), respectively. Global and regional V T increased significantly with NIV compared to HFNC or FM, but not between HFNC and FM. NIV yielded a significantly higher pulse oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen fraction ratio compared to HFNC (p=0.03). No significant difference was observed between HFNC, NIV and FM for dyspnoea. Patient comfort score with FM was not significantly different than with HFNC (p=0.1), but was lower with NIV (p=0.001). This study suggests a potential benefit of HFNC and NIV on alveolar recruitment in patients with hypoxaemic ARF. In contrast with HFNC, NIV increased lung volumes, which may contribute to overdistension and its potentially deleterious effect in these patients.

SUBMITTER: Artaud-Macari E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8666576 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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 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.

Dataset Information

High-flow oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation: a randomised physiological crossover study of alveolar recruitment in acute respiratory failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets