High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Noninvasive Ventilation for COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Dorzi HM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8743492 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLong-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment.ResultsAmong 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47-77] of predicted vs. 80% [71-88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53-70] vs. 80 [70-83], p = 0.01).ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020.
| S-EPMC10195662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory failure (ARF) is a major adverse event commonly encountered in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) has long been used in the management of ARF, it has several adverse events which may cause patient discomfort and lead to treatment complication. Recently, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has the potential to be an alternative for NIV in adults with ARF, including COVID-19 patients. The objective was to investigate the efficacy of HFNC compared to NIV in COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Literature search was carried out in electronic databases for relevant articles published prior to June 2021. The protocol used in this study has been registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020225186).ResultsAlthough the success rate of NIV is higher compared to HFNC (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.97; P=0.04), this study showed that the mortality in the NIV group is also significantly higher compared to HFNC group (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.63; P<0.001). Moreover, this study also demonstrated that there was no significant difference in intubation rates between the two groups (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.86-2.11; P=0.19).ConclusionsPatients treated with HFNC showed better outcomes compared to NIV for ARF due to COVID-19. Therefore, HFNC should be considered prior to NIV in COVID-19-associated ARF. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to better elucidate the benefit of HFNC in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8918719 | 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: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:BackgroundDuring the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raging around the world, the effectiveness of respiratory support treatment has dominated people's field of vision. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and value of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for COVID-19 patients.MethodsA comprehensive systematic review via PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, WHO database, China Biology Medicine Disc (SINOMED), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the results and risk of bias. The primary outcome is the number of deaths at day 28. The secondary outcomes are the occurrence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the number of deaths (no time-limited), length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, ventilator-free days, and oxygenation index [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO2)] at 24 h.ResultsIn total, nine studies [one randomized controlled trial (RCT), seven retrospective studies, and one prospective study] totaling 1582 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the incidence of IMV, number of deaths (no time-limited), and length of ICU stay were not statistically significant in the HFNC group compared with the NIV group (ps = 0.71, 0.31, and 0.33, respectively). Whereas the HFNC group performed significant advantages in terms of the number of deaths at day 28, length of hospital stay and oxygenation index (p < 0.05). Only in the ventilator-free days did NIV show advantages over the HFNC group (p < 0.0001).ConclusionFor COVID-19 patients, the use of HFNC therapy is associated with the reduction of the number of deaths at day 28 and length of hospital stay, and can significantly improve oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) at 24 h. However, there was no favorable between the HFNC and NIV groups in the occurrence of IMV. NIV group was superior only in terms of ventilator-free days.
| S-EPMC8972939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is the first-line treatment of adult patients with exacerbations of cystic fibrosis (CF). High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNT) might benefit patients with hypoxemia and can reduce physiological dead space. We hypothesized that HFNT and NIV would similarly reduce work of breathing and improving breathing pattern in CF patients. Our objective was to compare the effects of HFNT versus NIV in terms of work of breathing, assessed noninvasively by the thickening fraction of the diaphragm (TFdi, measured with ultrasound), breathing pattern, transcutaneous CO2 (PtcCO2), hemodynamics, dyspnea and comfort. METHODS:Adult CF patients who had been stabilized after requiring ventilatory support for a few days were enrolled and ventilated with HFNT and NIV for 30 min in crossover random order. RESULTS:Fifteen patients were enrolled. Compared to baseline, HFNT, but not NIV, reduced respiratory rate (by 3 breaths/min, p?=?0.01) and minute ventilation (by 2 L/min, p?=?0.01). Patients also took slightly larger tidal volumes with HFNT compared to NIV (p?=?0.02). TFdi per breath was similar under the two techniques and did not change from baseline. MAP increased from baseline with NIV and compared to HFNT (p???0.01). Comfort was poorer with the application of both HFNT and NIV than baseline. No differences were found for heart rate, SpO2, PtcCO2 or dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS:In adult CF patients stabilized after indication for ventilatory support, HFNT and NIV have similar effects on diaphragmatic work per breath, but high-flow therapy confers additional physiological benefits by decreasing respiratory rate and minute ventilation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Ethics Committee of St. Michael's Hospital (REB #14-338) and clinicaltrial.gov (NCT02262871).
| S-EPMC6125258 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8439370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the encouraging results of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients, it is also evident that some patients do not tolerate NIV or do not benefit from it. We conducted a study in which COPD patients with stable, chronic hypercapnia were treated with NIV and nasal high-flow (NHF) to compare effectiveness.MethodsIn a multi-centered, randomized, controlled, cross-over design, patients received 6 weeks of NHF ventilation followed by 6 weeks of NIV ventilation or vice-versa (TIBICO) between 2011 and 2016. COPD patients with stable daytime hypercapnia (pCO2≥50 mmHg) were recruited from 13 German centers. The primary endpoint was pCO2 changes from baseline blood gas, lung function, quality of life (QoL), the 6 min walking test, and duration of device use were secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 102 patients (mean±SD) age 65.3±9.3 years, 61% females, body mass index 23.1±4.8 kg/m2, 90% GOLD D, pCO2 56.5±5.4 mmHg were randomized. PCO2 levels decreased by 4.7% (n=94; full analysis set; 95% CI 1.8-7.5, P=0.002) using NHF and 7.1% (95% CI 4.1-10.1, P<0.001) from baseline using NIV (indistinguishable to intention-to-treat analysis). The difference of pCO2 changes between the two devices was -1.4 mmHg (95% CI -3.1-0.4, P=0.12). Both devices had positive impact on blood gases and respiratory scores (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Severe Respiratory Insufficiency Questionnaire).ConclusionsNHF may constitute an alternative to NIV in COPD patients with stable chronic hypercapnia, eg, those not tolerating or rejecting NIV with respect to pCO2 reduction and improvement in QoL.
| S-EPMC6615713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is considered as the first-line treatment for acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) complicated by respiratory acidosis. Recent studies demonstrate a role of nasal high-flow oxygen (NHF) in AECOPD as an alternative treatment in patients intolerant to NIV or with contraindications to it. Aim:The study aimed to evaluate whether NHF respiratory support is noninferior compared to NIV in respect to treatment failure, defined as need for intubation or change to alternative treatment group, in patients with AECOPD and mild-to-moderate acute or acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Methods:We designed a multicentre, prospective, randomised trial on patients with AECOPD, who have pH<7.35 but >7.25 and P aCO2 ?>45?mmHg, in whom NIV is indicated as a first-line treatment. According to power analysis, 498 participants will be required for establishing noninferiority of NHF compared to NIV. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive NIV or NHF. Treatment will be adjusted to maintain S pO2 between 88%-92% for both groups. Arterial blood gases, respiratory variables, comfort, dyspnoea score and any pulmonary or extrapulmonary complications will be assessed at baseline, before treatment initiation, and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48?h, then once daily from day 3 to patient discharge, intubation or death. Conclusion:Given the increasing number of studies demonstrating the physiological effects of NHF in COPD patients, we hypothesise that NHF respiratory support will be noninferior to NIV in patients with AECOPD and mild-to-moderate acute or acute on chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC7569159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients who are obese have a higher risk of acute respiratory failure after extubation in the ICU. This study aimed to compare the extubation of subjects who were critically ill and obese to high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) to determine whether HFNC can aid in reducing postextubation respiratory failure and the re-intubation rate.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, subjects who were obese, defined as individuals with a body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2, were randomly assigned to receive HFNC (n = 60) versus 60 subjects treated with NIV applied immediately after extubation. The primary outcome was the incidence of postextubation respiratory failure and re-intubation rate within 72 h. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation, breathing frequency, subjective dyspnea, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ICU mortality at day 28.ResultsCompared with NIV, HFNC reduced the risk of respiratory failure by 8.4%, 95% CI 6.2-12.8%. Even though the rate of re-intubation was lower in the HFNC group versus in the NIV group, no statistical significance was observed (11.6% vs 16.6%; difference 5%, 95% CI 2.5%-8.2%). In 48-h periods and 72 h after extubation, the mean PaO2 /FIO2 significantly increased in the HFNC group compared with the NIV group. Both groups had low dyspnea levels 72 h after extubation. No difference was detected between the groups in breathing frequency. In addition, the 2 groups had no significant difference in ICU and hospital length of stay. The HFNC and NIV groups had comparable hospital mortality rates. The multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed the presence of severe obesity, comorbidities, a higher severity score, and hypercapnia remained as factors associated with an increased risk of re-intubation.ConclusionsPostextubation application of HFNC may prevent respiratory failure in patients who are obese. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04035351.).
| S-EPMC9994274 | biostudies-literature