High flow nasal cannula versus non- invasive ventilation in prevention of intubation in immunocompromised patient with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

IntroductionNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended as first-line therapy in respiratory failure of critically ill immunocompromised patients as it can decrease intubation and mortality rates as compared with standard oxygen. However, its recommendation is only conditional. Indeed, the use of NIV in this setting has been challenged recently based on results of trials finding similar outcomes with or without NIV or even deleterious effects of NIV. To date, NIV has been compared with standard oxygen but not to high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) in immunocompromised patients. Several studies have found lower mortality rates using HFOT alone than when using HFOT with NIV sessions in patients with de novo respiratory failure, and even in immunocompromised patients. We are hypothesising that HFOT alone is more effective than HFOT with NIV sessions and reduces mortality of immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Methods and analysisThis study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFOT alone or with NIV in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Around 280 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The primary outcome is the mortality rate at day 28 after inclusion. Secondary outcomes include the rate of intubation in each group, length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality up to day 180.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02978300

Download Full-text

Failure of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Subsequent Intubation Is Associated With Increased Mortality as Compared to Failure of Non-Invasive Ventilation and Mechanical Ventilation Alone: A Real-World Retrospective Analysis

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine ◽

10.1177/0885066620968041 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 088506662096804

Author(s):

David C. Miller ◽

Jie Pu ◽

David Kukafka ◽

Christian Bime

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Respiratory Failure ◽

Retrospective Analysis ◽

Real World ◽

High Flow ◽

Nasal Cannula ◽

Invasive Ventilation ◽

High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Non Invasive Ventilation

Background: Despite the increasing use of high flow nasal cannula oxygenation systems (HFNC) in clinical practice, little is known about its role in all cause respiratory failure as compared to traditional non-invasive ventilation (BiPAP). Furthermore, the effect of HFNC on mortality is unknown. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 49,853 patients with respiratory failure treated with non-invasive respiratory support (HFNC or BiPAP) and/or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) between 2017 and 2018. Results: Patients initially treated with HFNC who underwent subsequent intubation and IMV had a higher mortality rate as compared to patients who were initially treated with BiPAP and underwent subsequent intubation and IMV (34.8% vs 26.3%, p < 0.0001, OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26,1.76). Patients first treated with HFNC who underwent subsequent intubation and IMV had a significantly increased mortality compared to patients who underwent immediate intubation and IMV (34.8% vs. 21.5%, p ≤ 0.0001, OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.67, 2.27). Stratified based on ICD-10 diagnosis, patients with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation or heart failure treated with HFNC and subsequent intubation and IMV had higher mortality as compared to those treated with immediate IMV alone. This trend did not hold true for patients with a diagnosis of pneumonia. Conclusion: In a real-world retrospective analysis, use of HFNC was associated with increased mortality as compared to BiPAP and IMV alone. Further study is needed to confirm these associations.

Download Full-text