Dataset Information

Use of Nasal Non-Invasive Ventilation with a RAM Cannula in the Outpatient Home Setting.

ABSTRACT: Nasal non-invasive-ventilation (Nasal NIV) is a mode of ventilatory support providing positive pressure to patients via a nasal interface. The RAM Cannula is an oxygen delivery device that can be used as an alternative approach to deliver positive pressure. Together they have been successfully used to provide respiratory support in neonatal in-patient settings.To describe the outpatient use of Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula as a feasible alternative for home respiratory support in children with chronic respiratory failure.We performed a retrospective case series of 18 children (4 months to 19 years old) using the Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula in the Pediatric Pulmonary Clinic at the McGovern Medical School, UTHealth (2014-16). Consideration for Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula utilization included: inability to wean-off in-patient respiratory support, comfort for dyspnea, intolerability of conventional mask interfaces and tracheostomy avoidance.Average age was 7 years. 50% were Caucasian, 38% African-American and 11% Hispanics. Pulmonary disorders included: chest wall weakness (38%), central control abnormalities (33%), obstructive lung disease (16%) and restrictive lung disease (11%). Indications for Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula initiation included: CPAP/BPAP masks intolerability (11%), dyspnea secondary to chest wall weakness (38%) and tracheostomy avoidance (50%). Average length of use of Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula was 8.4 months. Successful implementation of Nasal NIV/Ram Cannula was 94%. One patient required a tracheostomy following the use of Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula. Significant decrease in arterial PaCO2 pre and post Nasal NIV/RAM cannula initiation was notable (p=0.001).Outpatient use of Nasal NIV/RAM Cannula may prove to be a feasible and save treatment alternative for children with chronic respiratory failure, chest wall weakness, dyspnea and traditional nasal/face mask intolerance to avoid tracheostomy.

SUBMITTER: De Jesus Rojas W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5543681 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAcute respiratory failure (ARF) is a respiratory disease in which ventilation dysfunction of the lungs occurs at rest due to various factors, resulting in oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide (CO2) retention. In recent years, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), as a new type of oxygen therapy, has attracted increasing attention. Compared with traditional oxygen therapy, HFNC adopts nasal catheter to make it more in line with the physiological and respiratory characteristics of the human body, and thus can provide a higher and more constant inhalation of oxygen. This retrospective study was conducted to explore the clinical effect of HFNC combined with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of critically ill patients with ARF.MethodsA total of 532 critically ill patients with ARF treated in our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020 were screened for the suitability for being included in the study. Of these, 261 patients in this study received NIV. In total, 151 patients were included after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. NIV was generally given intermittently, and the daily duration of application was determined according to the patient's condition. The NIV-treated patients were assigned into two groups according to the oxygen inhalation mode during intermittent NIV: (I) standard group: normal oxygen inhalation was applied at the NIV interval; and (II) research group: patients treated with HFNC at the NIV interval. The respective basic data and outcome observation indices were collected.ResultsIn terms of the clinical outcome, the number of NIV treatment days in the research group was lower (P<0.05). At 30 min, 1 h, and 24 h after treatment, the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2), arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), oxygenation index (P/F) indices in the research group were higher, while the CO2 partial pressure (PaCO2) was lower (P<0.05). Finally, the 28- and 90-day survival rates were compared between the groups and the results indicated no significant difference in the 28-day survival rates, but the 90-day survival rates of the research group were considerably higher (P<0.05).ConclusionsThe use of HFNC combined with NIV to treat ARF in critically ill patients can effectively improve the ARF-related respiratory indicators in critically ill patients.

Project description:BackgroundMechanical ventilation is commonly used for managing respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but weaning patients off ventilator support can be challenging and associated with complications. While many patients respond well to Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), a significant proportion may not respond as favourably. We aimed to assess whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is equally effective as NIV in reducing extubation failure among previously intubated COPD patients.MethodsThis systematic review was carried out in line with PRISMA guidelines We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until February 15, 2023. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) of adults at high risk for extubating failure were included. We examined the use of HFNC as the intervention and NIV as the comparator. Our outcome of interest included, reintubation rate, length of hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) stay, adverse events, and time to reintubation. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for randomized trials to assess risk of bias.ResultsWe identified 348 citations, 11 of which were included, representing 2,666 patients. The trials indicate that HFNC is comparable to NIV in preventing reintubation after extubating in COPD patients. In comparison to NIV, HFNC also produced improved tolerance, comfort, and less complications such as airway care interventions. NIV with active humification may be more effective that HFNC in avoiding reintubation in patients who are at extremely high risk for extubating failure.ConclusionThe inconclusive nature of emerging evidence highlights the need for additional studies to establish the efficacy and suitability of HFNC as an alternative to NIV for previously intubated COPD patients. Clinicians should consider the available options and individualize their approach based on patient characteristics. Future research should focus on addressing these gaps in knowledge to guide clinical decision-making and optimize outcomes for this patient population.

Project description:BackgroundStudies suggest that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients with a low risk of extubation failure. However, the safety and effectiveness in patients at high risk of extubation failure are still debated. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of HFNC and NIV in high-risk patients.MethodsWe searched eight databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Biological Medical Database) with reintubation as a primary outcome measure. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), incidence of adverse events, and respiratory function indices. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software.ResultsThirteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 1457 patients were included. The HFNC and NIV groups showed no differences in reintubation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40, I2 = 0%, P = 0.42), mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, I2 = 0%, P = 0.54), and respiratory function indices (partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PaCO2]: MD - 1.31, 95% CI - 2.76-0.13, I2 = 81%, P = 0.07; oxygenation index [P/F]: MD - 2.18, 95% CI - 8.49-4.13, I2 = 57%, P = 0.50; respiratory rate [Rr]: MD - 0.50, 95% CI - 1.88-0.88, I2 = 80%, P = 0.47). However, HFNC reduced adverse events (abdominal distension: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.24, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01; aspiration: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.07, I2 = 0%, P = 0.06; facial injury: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.88, I2 = 0%, P = 0.03; delirium: RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.07-1.39, I2 = 0%, P = 0.12; pulmonary complications: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, I2 = 0%, P = 0.05; intolerance: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.57, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01) and may have shortened LOS (MD - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.86-- 0.20, I2 = 93%, P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis by language, extubation method, NIV parameter settings, and HFNC flow rate revealed higher heterogeneity in LOS, PaCO2, and Rr.ConclusionsIn adult patients at a high risk of extubation failure, HFNC reduced the incidence of adverse events but did not affect reintubation and mortality. Consequently, whether or not HFNC can reduce LOS and improve respiratory function remains inconclusive.

Dataset Information

Use of Nasal Non-Invasive Ventilation with a RAM Cannula in the Outpatient Home Setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets