Nasal pillow noninvasive ventilation versus high-flow nasal therapy after extubation in surgical intensive care patients: A propensity-matched cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of nasal pillow-noninvasive ventilation (NP-NIV) compared with high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in postsurgical patients.Methods
This propensity score-matched retrospective study enrolled postoperative patients that received NP-NIV (NP-NIV group) or HFNT (HFNT group) in the intensive care unit. Data were collected from their medical records and the tolerability and respiratory status before and after extubation were compared between the two groups.Results
The study enrolled 83 patients in the NP-NIV group and 27 patients in the HFNT group. After propensity score matching, there were 19 patients in each group. After matching, there were no significant differences in the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics before extubation. The tolerability was similar in both groups. When the NP-NIV group was compared with the HFNT group, the respiratory rate was significantly lower (median 16 [interquartile range, 14-17] versus median 19 [interquartile range, 18-26], respectively) and the partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio was significantly higher (median 205 [174-256] versus median 155 [130-192], respectively) at 1 h after extubation.Conclusion
NP-NIV was equally well tolerated and provided better respiratory support than HFNT in postsurgical patients.
SUBMITTER: Ohchi Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310252 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been widely applied in patients with high-risk extubation failure, including heart failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been demonstrated to benefit patients with heart failure by reducing cardiac preload. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFNC to NPPV for preventing extubation failure in patients with heart failure. This 3-year retrospective and single-center cohort study included patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who received prophylactic HFNC or NPPV after scheduled extubation from January 2015 to January 2018 from a medical center with four adult intensive care units. Demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis, and weaning status were collected. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 72 hours after extubation, which was defined as escalation to NPPV or reintubation in the HFNC group and was defined as requiring reintubation in the NPPV group. Secondary outcomes were reintubation within 72 hours, reintubation, duration of stay, and mortality during the intensive care unit and hospital stay. Of the 104 patients analyzed, characteristics of 58 patients in the HFNC group and 46 patients in the NPPV group were compared. The treatment failure within 72 hours in the two groups was not significantly different (25.9% vs 13%, p=0.106). Hypoxemic respiratory failure related treatment failure was significantly higher in the HFNC group. Prophylactic HFNC as first-line therapy had a comparable rate of reintubation within 72 hours to the prophylactic NPPV alone (17.2% vs 13%, p=0.556). Other secondary outcomes were similar between the two groups. Among patients with heart failure, HFNC was not inferior to NPPV for preventing extubation failure and reintubation. However, in case of an impending respiratory failure, selective patients may benefit from rescue NPPV.
| S-EPMC7354657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies of mechanically ventilated patients with a low risk of reintubation have suggested that the use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy reduces the risk of reintubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the effect of HFNC following extubation in elderly patients with a high risk of reintubation remains unclear.MethodsAll consecutive medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients aged >65 years who were mechanically ventilated for >24 h were prospectively registered between July 2017 and June 2018. Control was obtained from a historical database of patients attending the same ICU from January 2012 to December 2013. A total of 152 patients who underwent HFNC after planned extubation according to institutional protocols (HFNC group) were compared with a propensity-matched historical control group who underwent COT (n = 175, COT group). The primary outcome was the proportion of reintubated patients within 48 h after planned extubation.ResultsOne hundred patients from the HFNC group and 129 patients from the COT group were matched by a propensity score that reflected the probability of receiving HFNC, and all variables were well matched. Post-extubation respiratory failure (41.0% versus 33.3%, p = 0.291) and reintubation rate within 48 h (16.0% versus 11.6%, p = 0.436) did not differ between the HFNC and COT groups. However, decreased levels of consciousness as a sign of post-extubation respiratory failure (27.0% versus 11.7%, p = 0.007) were significantly increased in the HFNC group compared with the COT group.ConclusionAmong elderly patients who underwent planned extubation, HFNC was not associated with a decrease in the risk of reintubation. Further prospective study evaluating the clinical benefits of post-extubation HFNC in elderly patients is needed.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC7607726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) via facemask or helmet have been increasingly used in managing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) owing to COVID-19 with the premise of reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and possibly mortality. Their use carries the risk of delaying intubation and nosocomial infection transmission. To date, most studies on the effectiveness of these modalities are observational and suggest that HFNO and NIV have a role in the management of AHRF owing to COVID-19. Trials are ongoing and are evaluating different aspects of noninvasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF owing to COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8743492 | 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:AimsThe study aimed to compare and analyze the outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) who had extubation after weaning from mechanical ventilation.MethodsA total 120 patients with AHRF were enrolled into this study. These patients underwent tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were organized into two groups according to the score of Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II); group A: APACHE II score <12; group B: 12⩽ APACHE II score <24. Group A had 72 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (36 patients in each subgroup). Group B had 48 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (24 patients in each subgroup). General information, respiratory parameters, endpoint event, and comorbidities of adverse effect were compared and analyzed between the two subgroups.ResultsThe incidence of abdominal distension was significantly higher in patients treated with NPPV than in those treated with HFNC in group A (19.44% versus 0, p = 0.005) and group B (25% versus 0, p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the HFNC- and NPPV-treated patients in blood pH, oxygenation index, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, respiratory rate, and blood lactic acid concentration in either group (p > 0.05). Occurrence rate of re-intubation within 72 h of extubation was slightly, but not significantly, higher in NPPV-treated patients (p > 0.05).ConclusionThere was no significant difference between HFNC and NPPV in preventing respiratory failure in patients with AHRF with an APACHE II score <24 after extubation. However, HFNC was superior to NPPV with less incidence of abdominal distension.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC8013886 | 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:PurposeHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a heterogeneous population at high-risk for extubation failure. However, outcomes might differ in certain subgroups of patients. Thus, we aimed to determine whether NIV with active humidification is superior to HFNC in preventing reintubation in patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (very high risk for extubation failure).MethodsRandomized controlled trial in two intensive care units in Spain (June 2020‒June 2021). Patients ready for planned extubation with ≥ 4 of the following risk factors for reintubation were included: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 on extubation day, body mass index > 30, inadequate secretions management, difficult or prolonged weaning, ≥ 2 comorbidities, acute heart failure indicating mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or hypercapnia on finishing the spontaneous breathing trial. Patients were randomized to undergo NIV with active humidification or HFNC for 48 h after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate within 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis, multiorgan failure, length of stay, mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation.ResultsOf 182 patients (mean age, 60 [standard deviation (SD), 15] years; 117 [64%] men), 92 received NIV and 90 HFNC. Reintubation was required in 21 (23.3%) patients receiving NIV vs 35 (38.8%) of those receiving HFNC (difference -15.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.3 to -1%). Hospital length of stay was lower in those patients treated with NIV (20 [12‒36.7] days vs 26.5 [15‒45] days, difference 6.5 [95%CI 0.5-21.1]). No additional differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed.ConclusionsAmong adult critically ill patients at very high-risk for extubation failure, NIV with active humidification was superior to HFNC for preventing reintubation.
| S-EPMC9676812 | 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:Many intensive care unit patients who undergo endotracheal extubation experience extubation failure and require reintubation. Because of the high mortality rate associated with reintubation, postextubation respiratory management is crucial, especially for high-risk populations. We conducted the present study to compare the effectiveness of oxygen therapy administered using high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in preventing reintubation among patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV). This single-center, prospective, unblinded randomized controlled trial was at the respiratory care center (RCC). Participants were randomized to an HFNC group or an NIPPV group (20 patients in each) and received noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) administered using their assigned method. The primary outcome was reintubation within7 days after extubation. None of the patients in the NIPPV group required reintubation, whereas 5 (25%) of the patients in the HFNC group required reintubation (P = 0.047). The 90-day mortality rates of the NIPPV and HFNC groups (four patients [20%] vs. two patients [10%], respectively) did not differ significantly. No significant differences in length of RCC stay, length of hospital stay, time to liberation from NRS, and ventilator-free days at 28-day were identified. The time to event outcome analysis also revealed that the risk of reintubation in the HFNC group was higher than that in the NIPPV group (P = 0.018). Although HFNC is becoming increasingly common as a form of postextubation NRS, HFNC may not be as effective as NIPPV in preventing reintubation among patients who have been receiving PMV for at least 2 weeks. Additional studies evaluating HFNC as an alternative to NIPPV for patients receiving PMV are warranted.ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04564859; IRB number: 20160901R.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04564859 ).
| S-EPMC10033681 | biostudies-literature