[Ankylosing spondylarthritis in Morocco. Apropos of 40 cases].

P. Doury

1967-11-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

High-flow nasal cannula vs non-invasive ventilation in acute hypoxia: Propensity score matched study

Elizabeth S Munroe,Ina Prevalska,Madison Hyer,William J Meurer,Jarrod M Mosier,Mark A. Tidswell,Hallie C Prescott,Lai Wei,Henry Wang,Christopher M Fung,Mark A Tidswell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.09.26.23296167

2023-09-29

MedRxiv

Abstract:RATIONALE The optimal treatment for early hypoxemic respiratory failure is unclear, and both high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation are used. Determining clinically relevant outcomes for evaluating non-invasive respiratory support modalities remains a challenge. OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation within 24 hours of Emergency Department arrival (1/2018-12/2022). We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, non-invasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a Win Ratio. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS 1,265 patients met inclusion criteria. 795 (62.8%) received high-flow oxygen and 470 (37.2%) received non-invasive ventilation. We propensity score matched 736/1,265 (58.2%) patients. There was no difference between non-invasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal cannula in 28-day mortality (17.7% vs 23.1%, p=0.08) or ventilator-free days (median [Interquartile Range]: 28 [25, 28] vs 28 [13, 28], p=0.50), but patients on non-invasive ventilation required treatment for fewer hours (median 7 vs 13, p< 0.001). Win Ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored non-invasive ventilation (1.26, 95%CI 1.06-1.49, p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation was superior to high-flow nasal cannula for major pulmonary adverse events. Evaluation of composite outcomes is important in the assessment of respiratory support modalities.
Noninvasive Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Infections

Ghaida Jabri,Farah Alotaibi,Amjad M Ahmed,Jesna Jose,Farhan Z Alenezi,Musharaf Sadat,Felwa Bin Humaid,Fahad Al-Hameed,Javed Memon,Kasim Al Khatib,Abdullah M Alsuayb,Mohammed AlObaidi,Mohammed Al Mutairi,Ahmad A Alanaizi,Fuad Alghamdi,Yaseen M Arabi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.11286

2024-08-26

Respiratory Care

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared with invasive ventilation and mortality in subjects with severe acute respiratory infection.METHODS:This was a retrospective multi-center study of subjects with severe acute respiratory infection treated with ventilatory support between September 2012 and June 2018. We compared the 90-d mortality of subjects managed initially with NIV (NIV group) with those managed with invasive ventilation only (invasive ventilation group), adjusting by propensity score.RESULTS:Of 383 subjects, 189 (49%) were in the NIV group and 194 (51%) were in the invasive ventilation group. Of the subjects initially treated with NIV, 117 (62%) were eventually intubated. Crude 90-d mortality was lower in the NIV group versus the invasive ventilation group (42 [22.2%] vs 77 [39.7%]; P < .001). After propensity score adjustment, NIV was associated with lower 90-d mortality than invasive ventilation (odds ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; P < .001). The association of NIV with mortality compared with invasive ventilation was not different across the studied subgroups.CONCLUSIONS:In subjects with severe acute respiratory infection and acute respiratory failure, NIV was commonly used. NIV was associated with a lower 90-d mortality. The observed high failure rate suggests the need for further research to optimize patient selection and facilitate early recognition of NIV failure.

respiratory system,critical care medicine
Detailed Analysis of Primary Non-invasive Respiratory Support and Outcomes of Subjects With COVID-19 Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure

James Booker,Rebecca Egglestone,Jack Lushington,Maria Burova,Laura Hamilton,Elsie Hunter,Clare Morden,Darshni Pandya,Ryan Beecham,Robert MacKay,Sanjay Gupta,Michael P Grocott,Ahilanandan Dushianthan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32362

2022-12-09

Cureus

Abstract:Background The role of non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or Non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) respiratory support (NIRS) as a primary oxygenation strategy for COVID-19 patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), as opposed to invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive-MV), is uncertain. While NIRS may prevent complications related to invasive MV, prolonged NIRS and delays in intubation may lead to adverse outcomes. This study was conducted to assess the role of NIRS in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure and to explore the variables associated with NRIS failure. Methods This is a single-center, observational study of two distinct waves of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Patients initially managed with non-invasive respiratory support with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure were included. Demographics, comorbidities, admission laboratory variables, and ICU admission scores were extracted from electronic health records. Univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to summarise survival between the ventilatory and time-to-intubation groups. Results There were 291 patients, of which 232 were managed with NIRS as an initial ventilation strategy. There was a high incidence of failure (48.7%). Admission APACHE II score, SOFA score, HACOR score, ROX index, and PaO2/FiO2 were all predictive of NIRS failure. Daily (days 1-4) HACOR scores and ROX index measurements highly predicted NIRS failure. Late NIRS failure (>24 hours) was independently associated with increased mortality (44%). Conclusion NIRS is effective as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients with AHRF. However, failure, particularly delayed failure, is associated with significant mortality. Early prediction of NIRS failure may prevent adverse outcomes.
The Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in the Emergency Department and a Comparison of Its Efficacy With Noninvasive Ventilation

Varsha Shinde,Sharmila J Mavudelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65709

2024-07-29

Cureus

Abstract:Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation has emerged as a convenient and handy oxygenation mode over the past few years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFNC is designed to provide humidified oxygen at high flow rates to subjects in a much more patient-compliant method. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been a powerful tool in treating dyspneic patients of different etiologies, yielding positive outcomes over many decades. HFNC has the potential to serve as an alternative to NIV for acutely breathless patients, offering better patient compliance. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted with a population size of 100 patients. The patients were randomly assigned to HFNC and NIV groups and further compared based on the clinical criteria, arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratios, and modified Borg score. Simple proportions, mean, standard deviation, and chi-square tests were used. The chi-square test was applied to determine the association between the two attributes. Results: Both HFNC and NIV subset populations have shown substantial improvement in their clinical criteria in terms of respiratory rate, heart rate, oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratios, and modified Borg score over two and six hours with statistically significant improvement in oxygen saturations among HFNC subset in comparison to NIV subset (at two hours, p = 0.004; at six hours, p = 0.022). Secondary outcomes like the need for intubation (14% in HFNC, 22% in NIV) and mortality (4% in HFNC, 6% in NIV group) were noted, which were statistically insignificant in comparing their efficacy. Conclusion: The study concluded that HFNC resulted in better clinical parameters than NIV, but the difference was statistically insignificant except for oxygen saturation. Similarly, HFNC resulted in a decreased need for intubation and less mortality compared to NIV.
Outcome of Early Initiation of High-flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy among Pneumonia Patients Presenting with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Doaa M Magdy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24769

Abstract:Background: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is an upcoming and beneficial modality for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Objectives: To evaluate whether early use of HFNO in pneumonia patients with AHRF can reduce the need for invasive ventilation. Patients and methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 160 patients who fulfilled the criteria were included. The patient's characteristics, sequential organ failure assessment score, and simplified acute physiology score were recorded. Respiratory rate (RR), and oxygenation parameters (PaO2/FiO2), and RR-oxygenation index at selected time intervals were collected and analyzed. The primary outcome was the number of patients who needed intubation. Secondary outcomes included length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay and mortality at day 28. Results: The rate of intubation was not statistically significant between the two groups 15 vs 18.7%; difference 3.7% [(95% confidence interval (CI): 2.5-5.7%]. In 48-hour time periods, the mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly increased in the HFNO group compared with the non-invasive ventilation (NIV) group. The RRs and heart rate (HR) showed a significant decrease in the HFNO group.The length of ICU and hospital stays was not different between both groups. No significant differences were found in mortality rates between the HFNO and NIV groups 9 (11.2%) and 10 (12.5%), with 1.3% (95% CI: 0.7-3.8%) (p = 0.21). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that low baseline PaO2/FiO2, Respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX index) ≤ 5.4 measured at 12 hour and high severity scores were independent risk factors for intubation. Conclusion: Treatment with HFNO did not reduce the need for intubation among patients with pneumonia-induced AHRF, despite the improved PaO2/FiO2 observed with HFNO compared with NIV. Clinical trial no: NCT05809089. How to cite this article: Magdy DM. Outcome of Early Initiation of High-flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy among Pneumonia Patients Presenting with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(8):753-759.
Outcomes and characteristics of COVID-19 patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure/high-flow nasal oxygen outside the intensive care setting

Dominic L. Sykes,Michael G. Crooks,Khaing Thu Thu,Oliver I. Brown,Theodore J.P. Tyrer,Jodie Rennardson,Catherine Littlefield,Shoaib Faruqi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00318-2021

IF: 4.239

2021-07-15

ERJ Open Research

Abstract:Background Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been used to manage hypoxaemic respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Limited data are available for patients treated with noninvasive respiratory support outside of the intensive care setting. Methods In this single-centre observational study we observed the characteristics, physiological observations, laboratory tests and outcomes of all consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia between April 2020 and March 2021 treated with noninvasive respiratory support outside of the intensive care setting. Results We report the outcomes of 140 patients (mean± sd age: 71.2±11.1, 65% male (n=91)) treated with CPAP/HFNO outside of the intensive care setting. Overall mortality was 59% and was higher in those deemed unsuitable for mechanical ventilation (72%). The mean age of survivors was significantly lower than those who died (66.1 versus 74.4 years, p<0.001). Those who survived their admission also had a significantly lower median Clinical Frailty Score than the non-survivor group (2 versus 4, p<0.001). We report no significant difference in mortality between those treated with CPAP (n=92, mortality: 60%) or HFNO (n=48, mortality: 56%). Treatment was well tolerated in 86% of patients receiving either CPAP or HFNO. Conclusions CPAP and HFNO delivered outside of the intensive care setting are viable treatment options for patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia, including those considered unsuitable for invasive mechanical ventilation. This provides an opportunity to safeguard intensive care capacity for COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.
Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure

N Abou-Shala,U Meduri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199604000-00025

Abstract:Objectives: a) To describe the introduction of noninvasive means to provide positive-pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure; b) to describe the physiologic response to noninvasive ventilation; c) to review the current published literature on using noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute hypercapnic and/or hypoxemic respiratory failure; d) to describe the technique of applying mask ventilation and current recommendations for using noninvasive ventilation and current recommendations for using noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure; and e) to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of noninvasive ventilation. Data sources: All relevant articles published in the English medical literature from 1988 through August 1994 were retrieved through a MEDLINE search, as well as from the author's experience. Study selection: Studies were selected based on the use of positive-pressure mechanical ventilation delivered, using facial or nasal masks in various acute settings of respiratory failure. Data extraction: The authors extracted all applicable data. Data synthesis: Studies were analyzed according to the type of respiratory failure (hypercapnic vs. hypoxemic) and underlying conditions where noninvasive ventilation seemed to be a better alternative. The results were evaluated based on types of masks used and modes of ventilation. Outcome measures were compared based on studies that randomized patients with acute respiratory failure to receive noninvasive vs. conventional therapy. Complications of noninvasive ventilation, mainly local, were compared with those complications seen endotracheal intubation in acute respiratory failure patients. Conclusions: Noninvasive ventilation is a safe and effective means of ventilatory support for many patients with acute respiratory failure. Noninvasive ventilation is well tolerated, principally because it allows the patient to be in control and to continue verbal communication, and should be strongly considered in managing terminally ill patients with potentially reversible causes of respiratory failure. The duration of mechanical ventilation and its associated complications are significantly decreased in hypercapnic respiratory failure with noninvasive ventilation.
Noninvasive Ventilation for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19

Alexander A. Botsch,Michael J. Oravec,Brandon T. Rapier,Laine M. Goff,Ashley L. Desmett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2024663

2024-07-01

American Journal of Critical Care

Abstract:Background Use of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is debated. The COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges due to high patient volumes and worldwide resource strain. Objectives To determine associations between use of noninvasive ventilation in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, progression to intubation, and hospital mortality. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients in an institutional COVID-19 registry. Adult patients were included if they were admitted for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022, and developed moderate to severe ARDS. Primary outcomes were progression to intubation and hospital mortality in patients who received noninvasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation. A secondary outcome was successful treatment with noninvasive ventilation without intubation. Results Of 823 patients who met inclusion criteria, 454 (55.2%) did not receive noninvasive ventilation and 369 (44.8%) received noninvasive ventilation. Patients receiving noninvasive ventilation were more likely to require mechanical ventilation than were patients not receiving noninvasive ventilation. Among patients requiring endotracheal intubation, those receiving noninvasive ventilation had a higher likelihood of mortality. Patients receiving noninvasive ventilation had lower severity-adjusted odds of survival to discharge without intubation than did patients not receiving noninvasive ventilation. Conclusion Patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with noninvasive ventilation had increased likelihood of progression to endotracheal intubation and hospital mortality.

nursing,critical care medicine
Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research

Sampath Weerakkody,Pietro Arina,James Glenister,Sam Cottrell,Giacomo Boscaini-Gilroy,Mervyn Singer,Hugh E Montgomery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00414-8

Abstract:Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) has increasingly been used in the management of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, but questions remain about the utility, safety, and outcome benefit of NIRS strategies. We identified two randomised controlled trials and 83 observational studies, compromising 13 931 patients, that examined the effects of NIRS modalities-high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and bilevel positive airway pressure-on patients with COVID-19. Of 5120 patients who were candidates for full treatment escalation, 1880 (37%) progressed to invasive mechanical ventilation and 3658 of 4669 (78%) survived to study end. Survival was 30% among the 1050 patients for whom NIRS was the stated ceiling of treatment. The two randomised controlled trials indicate superiority of non-invasive ventilation over high-flow nasal oxygen in reducing the need for intubation. Reported complication rates were low. Overall, the studies indicate that NIRS in patients with COVID-19 is safe, improves resource utilisation, and might be associated with better outcomes. To guide clinical decision making, prospective, randomised studies are needed to address timing of intervention, optimal use of NIRS modalities-alone or in combination-and validation of tools such as oxygenation indices, response to a trial of NIRS, and inflammatory markers as predictors of treatment success.
Role of Non-Invasive Respiratory Supports in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure Patients with Do Not Intubate Orders

Clément Medrinal,Alexis Gillet,Fairuz Boujibar,Jonathan Dugernier,Marcel Zwahlen,Bouchra Lamia,Christophe Girault,Jacques Creteur,Jean-Marc Fellrath,Laurence Haesler,Laurie Lagache,Laure Goubert,Elise Artaud Macari,Olivier Taton,Philippe Gouin,Dimitri Leduc,Olivier Van Hove,Michelle Norrenberg,Guillaume Prieur,Yann Combret,Nils Correvon,Roger Hilfiker,Olivier Contal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132783

2021-06-24

Abstract:The current gold-standard treatment for COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure is invasive mechanical ventilation. However, do not intubate orders (DNI), prevent the use of this treatment in some cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate if non-invasive ventilatory supports can provide a good therapeutic alternative to invasive ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and a DNI. Data were collected from four centres in three European countries. Patients with severe COVID-19 infection were included. We emulated a hypothetical target trial in which outcomes were compared in patients with a DNI order treated exclusively by non-invasive respiratory support with patients who could be intubated if necessary. We set up a propensity score and an inverse probability of treatment weighting to remove confounding by indication. Four-hundred patients were included: 270 were eligible for intubation and 130 had a DNI order. The adjusted risk ratio for death among patients eligible for intubation was 0.81 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.42). The median length of stay in acute care for survivors was similar between groups (18 (10-31) vs. (19 (13-23.5); p = 0.76). The use of non-invasive respiratory support is a good compromise for patients with severe COVID-19 and a do not intubate order.
Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial

Gavin D Perkins,Chen Ji,Bronwen A Connolly,Keith Couper,Ranjit Lall,J Kenneth Baillie,Judy M Bradley,Paul Dark,Chirag Dave,Anthony De Soyza,Anna V Dennis,Anne Devrell,Sara Fairbairn,Hakim Ghani,Ellen A Gorman,Christopher A Green,Nicholas Hart,Siew Wan Hee,Zoe Kimbley,Shyam Madathil,Nicola McGowan,Benjamin Messer,Jay Naisbitt,Chloe Norman,Dhruv Parekh,Emma M Parkin,Jaimin Patel,Scott E Regan,Clare Ross,Anthony J Rostron,Mohammad Saim,Anita K Simonds,Emma Skilton,Nigel Stallard,Michael Steiner,Rama Vancheeswaran,Joyce Yeung,Daniel F McAuley,RECOVERY-RS Collaborators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.0028

IF: 11.816

2022-02-08

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, setting, and participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.
Peripheral QCT sector analysis reveals early exercise-induced increases in tibial bone mineral density.

Rachel K. Evans,Charles H Negus,Centi Aj,B. Spiering,William J. Kraemer,B. Nindl

2012-09-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVES The purpose of this controlled trial was to determine whether subtle changes in mineralization and geometry of the tibia were evident following short term exercise interventions. METHODS Fifty-seven female volunteers (age 20.1±1.6) were randomized to one of four, 13-week training groups: sedentary control, resistance training, aerobic training, or combined aerobic-resistance. A pQCT image analysis software was developed and used to analyze images taken at sites 4%, 38% and 66% from the distal tibia at baseline and at completion of training. Parameters of bone mineral density, geometry and strength were determined for the entire scan cross-section and for each of six 60° polar sectors. Repeated-measures ANOVA and Fisher's LSD post hoc tests analyzed the effects of training over time. RESULTS Trabecular density (TrDn) at the 4% site increased from 279.8±37.1 to 283.1±36.0 mg/cm(3) in the aerobic group, and from 285.1±24.6 to 287.5±22.9 mg/cm(3) in the combined group over the study period (P≤0.001). Regional sector analyses revealed that impact exercises resulted in localized changes to the medial aspect of the tibia. Small increases in total bone area were observed in the diaphysis (38% site) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Subtle, regional increases in trabecular density may be an early measurable manifestation of bone quality changes.
Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals

COVID-ICU group, for the REVA network, COVID-ICU investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03784-2

2021-12-08

Abstract:Rational: To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results: From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78-3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79-4.21, P < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.
High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Ventilation in AECOPD Patients with Respiratory Acidosis: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

Meng Wang,Feifan Zhao,Lina Sun,Ying Liang,Wei Yan,Xiaoyan Sun,Qingtao Zhou,Bei He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6377441

2023-04-15

Abstract:Background: Limited data are available about the clinical outcomes of AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis treated with HFNC versus NIV. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of HFNC with NIV as initial ventilation support strategy in AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to increase between-group comparability. Kaplan-Meier analysis was utilized to evaluate differences between the HFNC success, HFNC failure, and NIV groups. Univariate analysis was performed to identify the features that differed significantly between the HFNC success and HFNC failure groups. Results: After screening 2219 hospitalization records, 44 patients from the HFNC group and 44 from the NIV group were successfully matched after PSM. The 30-day mortality (4.5% versus 6.8%, p = 0.645) and 90-day mortality (4.5% versus 11.4%, p = 0.237) did not differ between the HFNC and NIV groups. Length of ICU stay (median: 11 versus 18 days, p = 0.001), length of hospital stay (median: 14 versus 20 days, p = 0.001), and hospital cost (median: 4392 versus 8403 $USD, p = 0.001) were significantly lower in the HFNC group compared with NIV group. The treatment failure rate was much higher in the HFNC group than in the NIV group (38.6% versus 11.4%, p = 0.003). However, patients who experienced HFNC failure and switched to NIV showed similar clinical outcomes to those who first received NIV. Univariate analysis showed that log NT-proBNP was an important factor for HFNC failure (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Compared with NIV, HFNC followed by NIV as rescue therapy may be a viable initial ventilation support strategy for AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis. NT-proBNP may be an important factor for HFNC failure in these patients. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed for more accurate and reliable results.
The effect of various reagents on adrenocorticotropic hormone.

C. Li,M. E. Simpson,H. Evans

1946-03-01

Abstract:
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
Comparison of noninvasive respiratory support methods in the postoperative period in cardiac surgery patients: a prospective randomized trial

Aleksandr A. Eremenko,D. V. Fomina,R. D. Komnov,L. S. Sorokina,A. V. Urbanov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21320/1818-474x-2023-3-97-107

2023-07-28

Annals of critical care

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The frequency of respiratory failure in the postoperative period is 17–22 % [1–3]. The most commonly used methods: noninvasive positive pressure mask ventilation (NIPPMV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNС), noninvasive positive pressure helmet ventilation (NIPPHV). OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the effectiveness of respiratory support methods depending on their effect on gas exchange in patients with mild to moderate respiratory failure in the early period after cardiac surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 42 cardiac surgery patients with 200 < P/F < 300 who were divided into 3 groups depending on the methods of respiratory support used (NIPPMV, HFNС, NIPPHV). The main point of the study is to assess the dynamics of the gas exchange indicators before, during and after their use. RESULTS: All three methods of NIVL contribute to a statistically significant improvement in gas exchange during NIVL, which persisted after the end of therapy (SpO2, PaO2, P/F, Qsp/Qt). In the group with the use of NIPPMV and HFNС an increase in the oxyhemoglobin fraction. In the course of this study, no data were revealed on changes in PaCO2. The largest increase in SpO2 was revealed in groups using a mask and helmet, but at the end of the NIVL session there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. A decrease in the proportion of patients with P/F < 300 after a single session in the NIPPMV group by 2 times, in the HFNC group — by 1.6 times, in the NIPPHV group — by 3.5 times. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting noninvasive respiratory support significantly improves the indicators of oxygenating lung function in the early postoperative period in cardiac surgery patients. NIPPHV and NIPPMV are more effective compared to HFNC. When using a helmet, a higher level of support is required.

English Else
Comparative Analysis of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy and Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in the Management of Severe Pneumonia: A Retrospective Study

Liling Zheng,Xiaojuan Dai,Weida Zheng,Rou Chen,Guifeng Zheng,Xiaoyun Yang,Liqiu Yang,Chanhua Zheng,Jiaxiang Zhang

Abstract:Background: Severe pneumonia continues to be a prominent cause of hospitalization and global mortality. There is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of different oxygen therapy modalities, particularly high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), in the treatment of severe pneumonia. Objective: This study investigated the risk factors associated with mechanical ventilation in pediatric patients with severe pneumonia. Methods: This retrospective study included a cohort of 240 pediatric patients with severe pneumonia treated at Zhangzhou Hospital, affiliated with Fujian Medical University, from January 2019 to December 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups: the HFNC group and the IMV group. Comparative analysis was performed on general patient information, infection markers, arterial blood gas values, as well as the prevalence of underlying conditions and complications between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to identify the risk factors for invasive mechanical ventilation in children with severe pneumonia. Results: Patients in the HFNC group experienced shorter hospitalization durations, and the average age in this group was lower compared to the IMV group (P < .05). Upon admission, respiratory rate and heart rate were higher in the HFNC group compared to the IMV group (P < .05). The IMV group demonstrated higher oxygenation index (OI) and infection markers, while the pH level was lower in the IMV group than in the HFNC group (P < .05). The prevalence of underlying conditions and complications in the IMV group was significantly higher than in the HFNC group (P < .05). Basic conditions such as heart disease, prematurity, heart failure, low OI, toxic encephalopathy, and influenza virus infection were identified as risk factors for IMV. Conclusions: High-flow nasal cannula therapy has shown therapeutic efficacy in pediatric patients with severe pneumonia. However, children with underlying medical conditions may require prompt tracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation.
Comparison between high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alternated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and HFNO and NIV alone in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Amanda Pereira da Cruz,Gloria Martins,Camila Marinelli Martins,Victoria Marques,Samantha Christovam,Denise Battaglini,Chiara Robba,Paolo Pelosi,Patricia Rieken Macedo Rocco,Fernanda Ferreira Cruz,Cynthia dos Santos Samary,Pedro Leme Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-024-01826-3

IF: 4.981

2024-04-24

European Journal of Medical Research

Abstract:Non-invasive respiratory support (conventional oxygen therapy [COT], non-invasive ventilation [NIV], high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO], and NIV alternated with HFNO [NIV + HFNO] may reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with COVID-19. The outcome of patients treated non-invasively depends on clinical severity at admission. We assessed the need for IMV according to NIV, HFNO, and NIV + HFNO in patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity and evaluated in-hospital survival rates and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay.

medicine, research & experimental
Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS

Domenico Luca Grieco,Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore,Oriol Roca,Elena Spinelli,Bhakti K. Patel,Arnaud W. Thille,Carmen Sílvia V. Barbas,Marina Garcia de Acilu,Salvatore Lucio Cutuli,Filippo Bongiovanni,Marcelo Amato,Jean-Pierre Frat,Tommaso Mauri,John P. Kress,Jordi Mancebo,Massimo Antonelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06459-2

IF: 38.9

2021-07-07

Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:The role of non-invasive respiratory support (high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation) in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is debated. The oxygenation improvement coupled with lung and diaphragm protection produced by non-invasive support may help to avoid endotracheal intubation, which prevents the complications of sedation and invasive mechanical ventilation. However, spontaneous breathing in patients with lung injury carries the risk that vigorous inspiratory effort, combined or not with mechanical increases in inspiratory airway pressure, produces high transpulmonary pressure swings and local lung overstretch. This ultimately results in additional lung damage (patient self-inflicted lung injury), so that patients intubated after a trial of noninvasive support are burdened by increased mortality. Reducing inspiratory effort by high-flow nasal oxygen or delivery of sustained positive end-expiratory pressure through the helmet interface may reduce these risks. In this physiology-to-bedside review, we provide an updated overview about the role of noninvasive respiratory support strategies as early treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit. Noninvasive strategies appear safe and effective in mild-to-moderate hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg), while they can yield delayed intubation with increased mortality in a significant proportion of moderate-to-severe (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 150 mmHg) cases. High-flow nasal oxygen and helmet noninvasive ventilation represent the most promising techniques for first-line treatment of severe patients. However, no conclusive evidence allows to recommend a single approach over the others in case of moderate-to-severe hypoxemia. During any treatment, strict physiological monitoring remains of paramount importance to promptly detect the need for endotracheal intubation and not delay protective ventilation.

critical care medicine

[Ankylosing spondylarthritis in Morocco. Apropos of 40 cases].

High-flow nasal cannula vs non-invasive ventilation in acute hypoxia: Propensity score matched study

Noninvasive Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Infections

Detailed Analysis of Primary Non-invasive Respiratory Support and Outcomes of Subjects With COVID-19 Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure

The Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in the Emergency Department and a Comparison of Its Efficacy With Noninvasive Ventilation

Outcome of Early Initiation of High-flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy among Pneumonia Patients Presenting with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Outcomes and characteristics of COVID-19 patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure/high-flow nasal oxygen outside the intensive care setting

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure

Noninvasive Ventilation for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19

Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research

Role of Non-Invasive Respiratory Supports in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure Patients with Do Not Intubate Orders

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial

Peripheral QCT sector analysis reveals early exercise-induced increases in tibial bone mineral density.

Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Ventilation in AECOPD Patients with Respiratory Acidosis: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

The effect of various reagents on adrenocorticotropic hormone.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled pilot study

Comparison of noninvasive respiratory support methods in the postoperative period in cardiac surgery patients: a prospective randomized trial

Comparative Analysis of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy and Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in the Management of Severe Pneumonia: A Retrospective Study

Comparison between high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alternated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and HFNO and NIV alone in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS