scholarly journals Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate orders: a multicentre prospective study OXYPAL

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e045659
Author(s):  
René Robert ◽  
Denis Frasca ◽  
Julie Badin ◽  
C Girault ◽  
Christophe Guitton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionA palliative approach to intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate order corresponds to a poorly evaluated target for non-invasive oxygenation treatments. Survival alone should not be the only target; it also matters to avoid discomfort and to restore the patient’s quality of life. We aim to conduct a prospective multicentre observational study to analyse clinical practices and their impact on outcomes of palliative high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in ICU patients with do-not-intubate orders.Methods and analysisThis is an investigator-initiated, multicentre prospective observational cohort study comparing the three following strategies of oxygenation: HFOT alone, NIV alternating with HFOT and NIV alternating with standard oxygen in patients admitted in the ICU for acute respiratory failure with a do-not-intubate order. The primary outcome is the hospital survival within 14 days after ICU admission in patients weaned from NIV and HFOT. The sample size was estimated at a minimum of 330 patients divided into three groups according to the oxygenation strategy applied. The analysis takes into account confounding factors by modelling a propensity score.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 numberNCT03673631

scholarly journals High-flow oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation: a randomised physiological cross-over study of alveolar recruitment in acute respiratory failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 00373-2021
Author(s):  
Elise Artaud-Macari ◽  
Michael Bubenheim ◽  
Gurvan Le Bouar ◽  
Dorothée Carpentier ◽  
Steven Grangé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Alveolar Recruitment ◽  
Patient Comfort ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Lung Volumes ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has recently shown clinical benefits in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) patients, while the interest of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) remains debated. The primary endpoint was to compare alveolar recruitment using global end-expiratory electrical lung impedance (EELI) between HFNC and NIV. Secondary endpoints compared regional EELI, lung volumes (global and regional tidal volume variation (TV)), respiratory parameters, hemodynamic tolerance, dyspnea and patient comfort between HFNC and NIV, relative to face mask (FM).A prospective randomised cross-over physiological study was conducted in patients with hypoxemic ARF due to pneumonia. They received alternately HFNC, NIV and FM.Sixteen patients were included. Global EELI was 4083 with NIV and 2921 with HFNC (p=0.4). Compared to FM, NIV and HFNC significantly increased global EELI by 1810.5 (95%CI: (857; 2646)) and 826 (95%CI: (399.5; 2361)) respectively. Global and regional TV increased significantly with NIV compared to HFNC or FM, but not between HFNC and FM. NIV yielded a significantly higher SpO2/ FiO2 ratio compared to HFNC (p=0.03). No significant difference was observed between HFNC, NIV and FM for dyspnea. Patient comfort score with FM was not significantly different than with HFNC (p=0.1) but was lower with NIV (p=0.001).This study suggests a potential benefit of HFNC and NIV on alveolar recruitment in patients with hypoxemic ARF. In contrast with HFNC, NIV increased lung volumes which may contribute to overdistension and its potentially deleterious effect in these patients.

scholarly journals The impact of non-invasive respiratory support techniques on the lethal outcome frequency in adult with severe respiratory failure caused by the new coronavirus infection

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
К. A. Tsygankov ◽  
I. N. Grachev ◽  
Vladimir I. Shatalov ◽  
А. V. Schegolev ◽  
D. A. Аveryanov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Severe Respiratory Failure ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Oxygen ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
Group 2

The objective: to evaluate the effect of high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation on the mortality rate in adults with severe respiratory failure caused by the new coronavirus infection in the intensive care unit (ICU).Subjects and methods. A one-center retrospective study was conducted. Electronic medical files of patients treated in the ICU from April 1 to May 25, 2020, were analyzed. Totally, 101 medical files were selected, further, they were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n = 49) included patients who received oxygen insufflation, and should it fail, they received traditional artificial ventilation. No non-invasive respiratory therapy was used in this group. Group 2 (n = 52) included patients who received high-flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation. The mortality rate in the groups made a primary endpoint for assessing the impact of high-flow oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation. The following parameters were also analyzed: drug therapy, the number of patients in whom non-invasive techniques were used taking into account the frequency of cases when these techniques failed, and the number of patients in whom artificial ventilation was initiated.Results. In Group 2, non-invasive methods of respiratory therapy were used in 31 (60%) cases. High-flow oxygen therapy was used in 19 (36%) of them; in 13 cases this method allowed weaning them from the high flow. Non-invasive ventilation was used in 18 cases, in 12 patients it was used due to progressing severe respiratory failure during humidified oxygen insufflation, in 6 patients – after the failed high-flow oxygen therapy. In Group 1, 25 (51%) patients were intubated and transferred to artificial ventilation, in Group 2, 10 (19.2%) underwent the same. The lethal outcome was registered in 23 (47%) cases in Group 1, and in 10 (19.2%) in Group 2 (p = 0.004). Analysis of drug therapy in the groups revealed the difference in the prescription of pathogenetic therapy. Logistic regression demonstrated the effectiveness of the combination of tocilizumab + a glucocorticoid in reducing the frequency of lethal cases (p = 0.001).Conclusion. The use of non-invasive respiratory support in adults with severe respiratory failure caused by the new coronavirus infection combined with therapy by tocilizumab + a glucocorticoid can reduce the incidence of lethal cases.

scholarly journals Awake Prone Positioning, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Non-Invasive Ventilation as Non-Invasive Respiratory Strategies in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 391
Author(s):  
Benedikt Schmid ◽  
Mirko Griesel ◽  
Anna-Lena Fischer ◽  
Carolina S. Romero ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation

Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65–1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03–1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71–0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51–2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document