High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled pilot study
Nicolas Marjanovic,Melyne Piton,Jennifer Lamarre,Camille Alleyrat,Raphael Couvreur,Jérémy Guenezan,Olivier Mimoz,Jean-Pierre Frat
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mej.0000000000001128
2024-02-16
European Journal of Emergency Medicine
Abstract:Background Whether high-flow nasal oxygen can improve clinical signs of acute respiratory failure in acute heart failure (AHF) is uncertain. Objective To compare the effect of high-flow oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on respiratory rate in patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) for AHF-related acute respiratory failure. Design, settings and participants Multicenter, randomized pilot study in three French EDs. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to suspected AHF were included. Key exclusion criteria were urgent need for intubation, Glasgow Coma Scale <13 points or hemodynamic instability. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (minimum 50 l/min) or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation. Outcomes measure The primary outcome was change in respiratory rate within the first hour of treatment and was analyzed with a linear mixed model. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulse oximetry, heart rate, blood pressure, blood gas samples, comfort, treatment failure and mortality. Main results Among the 145 eligible patients in the three participating centers, 60 patients were included in the analysis [median age 86 (interquartile range (IQR), 90; 92) years]. There was a median respiratory rate of 30.5 (IQR, 28; 33) and 29.5 (IQR, 27; 35) breaths/min in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change of −10 (IQR, −12; −8) with high-flow nasal oxygen and −7 (IQR, −11; −5) breaths/min with NIV [estimated difference −2.6 breaths/min (95% confidence interval (CI), −0.5–5.7), P = 0.052] at 60 min. There was a median SpO 2 of 95 (IQR, 92; 97) and 96 (IQR, 93; 97) in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change at 60 min of 2 (IQR, 0; 5) with high-flow nasal oxygen and 2 (IQR, −1; 5) % with NIV [estimated difference 0.8% (95% CI, −1.1–2.8), P = 0.60]. PaO 2 , PaCO 2 and pH did not differ at 1 h between groups, nor did treatment failure, intubation and mortality rates. Conclusion In this pilot study, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in changes in respiratory rate among patients with acute respiratory failure due to AHF and managed with high-flow oxygen or NIV. However, the point estimate and its large confidence interval may suggest a benefit of high-flow oxygen. Trial registration NCT04971213 (https://clinicaltrials.gov).
emergency medicine