Dataset Information

Nasal high-flow compared to non-invasive ventilation in treatment of acute acidotic hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-protocol for a randomized controlled noninferiority trial (ELVIS).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) have a major negative impact on health status, rates of hospitalization, readmission, disease progression and mortality. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is the standard therapy for hypercapnic acidotic respiratory failure in AECOPD. Despite its beneficial effects, NIV is often poorly tolerated (11-34 % failure rate). An increasing number of studies have documented a beneficial effect of nasal high-flow (NHF) in acute hypercapnia. We designed a prospective, randomized, multi-centre, open label, non-inferiority trial to compare treatment failure in nasal NHF vs NIV in patients with acidotic hypercapnic AECOPD.

Methods

The study will be conducted in about 35 sites in Germany. Patients with hypercapnic AECOPD with respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.35) will be randomized 1:1 to NIV or NHF. The primary outcome is the combined endpoint of intubation, treatment failure or death at 72 h. The switch from one to the other device marks a device failure but acts as a rescue treatment in absence of intubation criteria. A sample size of 720 was calculated to have 80% power for showing that NHF is non-inferior to NIV with a margin of 8 percentage points. Linear regression will be used for the confirmatory analysis.

Discussion

If NHF is shown to be non-inferior to NIV in acidotic hypercapnic AECOPD, it could become an important alternative treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04881409 , Registered on May 11, 2021.

SUBMITTER: Braunlich J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are typically managed with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The impact of low-flow extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) on outcome in these patients has not been explored in randomised trials.MethodsOpen-label randomised trial comparing NIV (NIV arm) with ECCO2R (ECCO2R arm) in patients with AECOPD at high risk of NIV failure (pH < 7.30 after ≥ 1 h of NIV). The primary endpoint was time to cessation of NIV. Secondary outcomes included device tolerance and complications, changes in arterial blood gases, hospital survival.ResultsEighteen patients (median age 67.5, IQR (61.5-71) years; median GOLD stage 3 were enrolled (nine in each arm). Time to NIV discontinuation was shorter with ECCO2R (7:00 (6:18-8:30) vs 24:30 (18:15-49:45) h, p = 0.004). Arterial pH was higher with ECCO2R at 4 h post-randomisation (7.35 (7.31-7.37) vs 7.25 (7.21-7.26), p < 0.001). Partial pressure of arterial CO2 (PaCO2) was significantly lower with ECCO2R at 4 h (6.8 (6.2-7.15) vs 8.3 (7.74-9.3) kPa; p = 0.024). Dyspnoea and comfort both rapidly improved with commencement of ECCO2R. There were no severe or life-threatening complications in the study population. There were no episodes of major bleeding or red blood cell transfusion in either group. ICU and hospital length of stay were longer with ECCO2R, and there was no difference in 90-day mortality or functional outcomes at follow-up.InterpretationThere is evidence of benefit associated with ECCO2R with time to improvement in respiratory acidosis, in respiratory physiology and an immediate improvement in patient comfort and dyspnoea with commencement of ECCO2R. In addition, there was minimal clinically significant adverse events associated with ECCO2R use in patients with AECOPD at risk of failing or not tolerating NIV. However, the ICU and hospital lengths of stay were longer in the ECCO2R for similar outcomes. Trial registration The trial is prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02086084. Registered on 13th March 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02086084?cond=ecco2r&draw=2&rank=8.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is indicated to treat respiratory acidosis due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent nonrandomized studies also demonstrated some physiological effects of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in COPD patients. We designed a prospective, unblinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to assess the noninferiority of HFNT compared to NIV with respect to the reduction of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in patients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis. METHODS:We will enroll adult patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, as defined by arterial pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2???55?mmHg. Patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive NIV or HFNT. NIV will be applied through a mask with a dedicated ventilator in pressure support mode. Positive end-expiratory pressure will be set at 3-5 cmH2O with inspiratory support to obtain a tidal volume between 6 and 8?ml/kg of ideal body weight. HFNT will be initially set at a temperature of 37?°C and a flow of 60?L/min. At 2 and 6?h we will assess arterial blood gases, vital parameters, respiratory rate, treatment intolerance and failure, need for endotracheal intubation, time spent under mechanical ventilation (both invasive and NIV), intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Based on an ? error of 5% and a ? error of 80%, with a standard deviation for PaCO2 equal to 15?mmHg and a noninferiority limit of 10?mmHg, we computed a sample size of 56 patients. Considering potential drop-outs and nonparametric analysis, the final computed sample size was 80 patients (40 per group). DISCUSSION:HFNT is more comfortable than NIV in COPD patients recovering from an episode of exacerbation. If HFNT would not be inferior to NIV, HFNT could be considered as an alternative to NIV to treat COPD patients with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03370666 . Registered on December 12, 2017.

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:BackgroundThe use of ward-based noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) unrelated to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes and failure rates associated with NIV application in the ward-based setting for patients with AHRF unrelated to COPD.MethodsA multicentre, retrospective cohort study of patients with AHRF unrelated to COPD was conducted. COPD was not the main reason for hospital admission, treated with ward-based NIV between February 2004 and December 2018. All AHRF patients were eligible; exclusion criteria comprised COPD patients, age < 18 years, pre-NIV pH < 7.35, or a lack of pre-NIV blood gas. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome; univariable and multivariable models were constructed. The obesity-related AHRF group included patients with AHRF due to obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS), and the non-obesity-related AHRF group included patients with AHRF due to pneumonia, bronchiectasis, neuromuscular disease, or fluid overload.ResultsIn total, 479 patients were included in the analysis; 80.2% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Obesity-related AHRF was the indication for NIV in 39.2% of all episodes and was the aetiology with the highest rate of survival to hospital discharge (93.1%). In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality were increased age (odds ratio, 95% CI: 1.034, 1.017-1.051, P < 0.001) and pneumonia on admission (5.313, 2.326-12.131, P < 0.001). In the obesity-related AHRF group, pre-NIV pH < 7.15 was associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality (7.800, 1.843-33.013, P=0.005); however, a pre-NIV pH 7.15-7.25 was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (2.035, 0.523-7.915, P=0.305).ConclusionPre-NIV pH and age have been identified as important predictors of surviving ward-based NIV treatment. Moreover, these data support the use of NIV in ward-based settings for obesity-related AHRF patients with pre-NIV pH thresholds down to 7.15. However, future controlled trials are required to confirm the effectiveness of NIV use outside critical care settings for obesity-related AHRF.