Oxygenation Strategy During Acute Respiratory Failure in Critically-Ill Immunocompromised Patients

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in hospitalised patients with respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) is used in diverse hospital settings to treat patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence regarding any benefits HFNO therapy has compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients with ARF.

METHODS

Three databases (Embase, Medline and CENTRAL) were searched on 22 March 2023 for studies evaluating HFNO compared with COT for the treatment of ARF, with the primary outcome being hospital mortality and secondary outcomes including (but not limited to) escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (randomised controlled trials (RCTs)), ROBINS-I (non-randomised trials) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). RCTs and observational studies were pooled together for primary analyses, and secondary analyses used RCT data only. Treatment effects were pooled using the random effects model.

RESULTS

63 studies (26 RCTs, 13 cross-over and 24 observational studies) were included, with 10 230 participants. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of hospital mortality (risk ratio, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; p=0.29; 17 studies, n=5887) between HFNO and COT for all causes ARF. However, compared with COT, HFNO significantly reduced the overall need for escalation to IMV (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95 p=0.003; 39 studies, n=8932); and overall need for escalation to NIV (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; p=0.04; 16 studies, n=3076). In subgroup analyses, when considering patients by illness types, those with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure who received HFNO compared with COT had a significant reduction in-hospital mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02).

DISCUSSION

HFNO was superior to COT in reducing the need for escalation to both IMV and NIV but had no impact on the primary outcome of hospital mortality. These findings support recommendations that HFNO may be considered as first-line therapy for ARF.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264837.

[Non-invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure. Clinical Practice Guidelines - on behalf of the German Society of Pneumology and Ventilatory Medicine]

The guideline update outlines the advantages as well as the limitations of NIV in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in daily clinical practice and in different indications.Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has a high value in therapy of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, as it significantly reduces the length of ICU stay and hospitalization as well as mortality.Patients with cardiopulmonary edema and acute respiratory failure should be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and oxygen in addition to necessary cardiological interventions. This should be done already prehospital and in the emergency department.In case of other forms of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with only mild or moderately disturbed gas exchange (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg) there is no significant advantage or disadvantage compared to high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). In severe forms of ARDS NIV is associated with high rates of treatment failure and mortality, especially in cases with NIV-failure and delayed intubation.NIV should be used for preoxygenation before intubation. In patients at risk, NIV is recommended to reduce extubation failure. In the weaning process from invasive ventilation NIV essentially reduces the risk of reintubation in hypercapnic patients. NIV is regarded useful within palliative care for reduction of dyspnea and improving quality of life, but here in concurrence to HFNO, which is regarded as more comfortable. Meanwhile NIV is also recommended in prehospital setting, especially in hypercapnic respiratory failure and pulmonary edema.With appropriate monitoring in an intensive care unit NIV can also be successfully applied in pediatric patients with acute respiratory insufficiency.

Sepsis and acute respiratory failure in patients with cancer: how can we improve care and outcomes even further?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Care and outcomes of critically ill patients with cancer have improved over the past decade. This selective review will discuss recent updates in sepsis and acute respiratory failure among patients with cancer, with particular focus on important opportunities to improve outcomes further through attention to phenotyping, predictive analytics, and improved outcome measures.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of cancer diagnoses in intensive care units (ICUs) is nontrivial and increasing. Sepsis and acute respiratory failure remain the most common critical illness syndromes affecting these patients, although other complications are also frequent. Recent research in oncologic sepsis has described outcome variation - including ICU, hospital, and 28-day mortality - across different types of cancer (e.g., solid vs. hematologic malignancies) and different sepsis definitions (e.g., Sepsis-3 vs. prior definitions). Research in acute respiratory failure in oncology patients has highlighted continued uncertainty in the value of diagnostic bronchoscopy for some patients and in the optimal respiratory support strategy. For both of these syndromes, specific challenges include multifactorial heterogeneity (e.g. in etiology and/or underlying cancer), delayed recognition of clinical deterioration, and complex outcomes measurement.

SUMMARY

Improving outcomes in oncologic critical care requires attention to the heterogeneity of cancer diagnoses, timely recognition and management of critical illness, and defining appropriate ICU outcomes.

Oxygenation strategy during acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) in immunocompromised patients remains challenging to treat. A large number of case require admission to intensive care unit (ICU) where mortality remains high. Oxygenation without intubation is important in this setting. This review summarizes recent studies assessing oxygenation devices for immunocompromised patients. Previous studies showed that non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been associated with lower intubation and mortality rates. Indeed, in recent years, the outcomes of immunocompromised patients admitted to the ICU have improved. In the most recent randomized controlled trials, including immunocompromised patients admitted to the ICU with ARF, neither NIV nor high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) could reduce the mortality rate. In this setting, other strategies need to be tested to decrease the mortality rate. Early admission strategy and avoiding late failure of oxygenation strategy have been assessed in retrospective studies. However, objective criteria are still lacking to clearly discriminate time to admission or time to intubation. Also, diagnosis strategy may have an impact on intubation or mortality rates. On the other hand, lack of diagnosis has been associated with a higher mortality rate. In conclusion, improving outcomes in immunocompromised patients with ARF may include strategies other than the oxygenation strategy alone. This review discusses other unresolved questions to decrease mortality after ICU admission in such patients.