Dataset Information

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy decrease the risk of mortality and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia? A retrospective and comparative study of 265 cases.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Corona virus disease (Covid-19) affects the airways and induces pulmonary lesions, patients with this disease require oxygen therapy as the disease progresses. Several oxygenation options have been used, l'HFNO had showed beneficial effects.

The objective of this study

To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen HFNO versus non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19.

Methods

This is a retrospective and comparative study conducted over a period of 10 months from March 2020 to December 2020 and involving 600 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit of the CHU Mohammed VI of Oujda for the management of acute respiratory failure caused by COVID-19.

Results

Out of 600 patients with acute respiratory failure, 265 patients were included in the analyses. 162 (61.10%) patients were treated with HFNO, the intubation rate was 49.7% (80 patients out of 162) of which 63 died intubated (78.8%). Concerning the 82 non-intubated patients, only 16 died (19.8%).The total number of patients who received NIV was 71 (26.8%), 33 (46.5%) required mechanical ventilation. In-hospital mortality in patients treated with NIV was 100%.The difference in mortality outcome between the two groups was significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced in HFNO.

Conclusions

Treatment with high-flow oxygen improved survival in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure compared with noninvasive ventilation, although no difference was observed in intubation rate.

SUBMITTER: Alkouh R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8724016 | 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:Although mechanical ventilation is a life-saving intervention in patients suffering from respiratory failure, prolonged mechanical ventilation is often associated with numerous complications including problematic weaning. In contracting skeletal muscle, inadequate oxygen supply can limit oxidative phosphorylation resulting in muscular fatigue. However, whether prolonged mechanical ventilation results in decreased diaphragmatic blood flow and induces an oxygen supply-demand imbalance in the diaphragm remains unknown.We tested the hypothesis that prolonged controlled mechanical ventilation results in a time-dependent reduction in rat diaphragmatic blood flow and microvascular PO2 and that prolonged mechanical ventilation would diminish the diaphragm's ability to increase blood flow in response to muscular contractions.Compared to 30 mins of mechanical ventilation, 6 hrs of mechanical ventilation resulted in a 75% reduction in diaphragm blood flow (via radiolabeled microspheres), which did not occur in the intercostal muscle or high-oxidative hindlimb muscle (e.g., soleus). There was also a time-dependent decline in diaphragm microvascular PO2 (via phosphorescence quenching). Further, contrary to 30 mins of mechanical ventilation, 6 hrs of mechanical ventilation significantly compromised the diaphragm's ability to increase blood flow during electrically-induced contractions, which resulted in a ~80% reduction in diaphragm oxygen uptake. In contrast, 6 hrs of spontaneous breathing in anesthetized animals did not alter diaphragm blood flow or the ability to augment flow during electrically-induced contractions.These new and important findings reveal that prolonged mechanical ventilation results in a time-dependent decrease in the ability of the diaphragm to augment blood flow to match oxygen demand in response to contractile activity and could be a key contributing factor to difficult weaning. Although additional experiments are required to confirm, it is tempting to speculate that this ventilator-induced decline in diaphragmatic oxygenation could promote a hypoxia-induced generation of reactive oxygen species in diaphragm muscle fibers and contribute to ventilator-induced diaphragmatic atrophy and contractile dysfunction.

Project description:BACKGROUND:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is being increasingly used to prevent post-extubation hypoxemic respiratory failure and reintubation. However, evidence to support the use of HFNC in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure after extubation is limited. This study was conducted to test if HFNC is non-inferior to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing post-extubation treatment failure in COPD patients previously intubated for hypercapnic respiratory failure. METHODS:COPD patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure who were already receiving invasive ventilation were randomized to HFNC or NIV at extubation at two large tertiary academic teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either resumption of invasive ventilation or switching to the other study treatment modality (NIV for patients in the NFNC group or vice versa). RESULTS:Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group or NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 44 patients in the HFNC group and 42 patients in the NIV group were included in the analysis. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.7% and 28.6% in the NIV group-risk difference of -?5.8% (95% CI, -?23.8-12.4%, p?=?0.535), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior margin of 9%. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure showed that treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group, with a risk difference of -?50.0% (95% CI, -?74.6 to -?12.9%, p?=?0.015). One hour after extubation, the mean respiratory rates of both groups were faster than their baseline levels before extubation (p?<?0.050). Twenty-four hours after extubation, the respiratory rate of the HFNC group had returned to baseline, but the NIV group was still higher than the baseline. Forty-eight hours after extubation, the respiratory rates of both groups were not significantly different from the baseline. The average number of daily airway care interventions in the NIV group was 7 (5-9.3), which was significantly higher than 6 (4-7) times in the HFNC group (p?=?0.006). The comfort score and incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown of the HFNC group was also significantly better than that of the NIV group [7 (6-8) vs 5 (4-7), P?<?0.001] and [0 vs 9.6%, p?=?0.027], respectively. CONCLUSION:Among COPD patients with severe hypercapnic respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation, the use of HFNC after extubation did not result in increased rates of treatment failure compared with NIV. HFNC also had better tolerance and comfort than NIV. TRIAL REGISTRATION:chictr.org ( ChiCTR1800018530 ). Registered on 22 September 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.

Project description:BackgroundIn intensive care units (ICUs), patients experiencing post-extubation respiratory failure have poor outcomes. The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) to treat post-extubation respiratory failure may increase the risk of death. This study aims at comparing mortality between patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen or high-flow nasal oxygen alone.MethodsPost-hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial focusing on patients who experienced post-extubation respiratory failure within the 7 days following extubation. Patients were classified in the NIV group or the high-flow nasal oxygen group according to oxygenation strategy used after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure. Patients reintubated within the first hour after extubation and those promptly reintubated without prior treatment were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at day 28 after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure.ResultsAmong 651 extubated patients, 158 (25%) experienced respiratory failure and 146 were included in the analysis. Mortality at day 28 was 18% (15/84) using NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 29% (18/62) with high flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, - 11% [95% CI, - 25 to 2]; p = 0.12). Among the 46 patients with hypercapnia at the onset of respiratory failure, mortality at day 28 was 3% (1/33) with NIV and 31% (4/13) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, - 28% [95% CI, - 54 to - 6]; p = 0.006). The proportion of patients reintubated 48 h after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure was 44% (37/84) with NIV and 52% (32/62) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (p = 0.21).ConclusionsIn patients with post-extubation respiratory failure, NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen might not increase the risk of death. Trial registration number The trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the registration number NCT03121482 the 20th April 2017.