Do Thresholds for Invasive Ventilation in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Exist? A Cohort Study

Noninvasive vs invasive respiratory support for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92-2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43-7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25-3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92-2.74).

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.

When to intubate in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure? Options and opportunities for evidence-informed decision making in the intensive care unit

The optimal timing of intubation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is uncertain and became a point of controversy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Invasive mechanical ventilation is a potentially life-saving intervention but carries substantial risks, including injury to the lungs and diaphragm, pneumonia, intensive care unit-acquired muscle weakness, and haemodynamic impairment. In deciding when to intubate, clinicians must balance premature exposure to the risks of ventilation with the potential harms of unassisted breathing, including disease progression and worsening multiorgan failure. Currently, the optimal timing of intubation is unclear. In this Personal View, we examine a range of parameters that could serve as triggers to initiate invasive mechanical ventilation. The utility of a parameter (eg, the ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen) to predict the likelihood of a patient undergoing intubation does not necessarily mean that basing the timing of intubation on that parameter will improve therapeutic outcomes. We examine options for clinical investigation to make progress on establishing the optimal timing of intubation.

Basing intubation of acutely hypoxemic patients on physiologic principles

The decision to intubate a patient with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who is not in apparent respiratory distress is one of the most difficult clinical decisions faced by intensivists. A conservative approach exposes patients to the dangers of hypoxemia, while a liberal approach exposes them to the dangers of inserting an endotracheal tube and invasive mechanical ventilation. To assist intensivists in this decision, investigators have used various thresholds of peripheral or arterial oxygen saturation, partial pressure of oxygen, partial pressure of oxygen-to-fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, and arterial oxygen content. In this review we will discuss how each of these oxygenation indices provides inaccurate information about the volume of oxygen transported in the arterial blood (convective oxygen delivery) or the pressure gradient driving oxygen from the capillaries to the cells (diffusive oxygen delivery). The decision to intubate hypoxemic patients is further complicated by our nescience of the critical point below which global and cerebral oxygen supply become delivery-dependent in the individual patient. Accordingly, intubation requires a nuanced understanding of oxygenation indexes. In this review, we will also discuss our approach to intubation based on clinical observations and physiologic principles. Specifically, we consider intubation when hypoxemic patients, who are neither in apparent respiratory distress nor in shock, become cognitively impaired suggesting emergent cerebral hypoxia. When deciding to intubate, we also consider additional factors including estimates of cardiac function, peripheral perfusion, arterial oxygen content and its determinants. It is not possible, however, to pick an oxygenation breakpoint below which the benefits of mechanical ventilation decidedly outweigh its hazards. It is futile to imagine that decision making about instituting mechanical ventilation in an individual patient can be condensed into an algorithm with absolute numbers at each nodal point. In sum, an algorithm cannot replace the presence of a physician well skilled in the art of clinical evaluation who has a deep understanding of pathophysiologic principles.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation as Initial Treatment in Acute Hypoxia: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

IMPORTANCE

Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypoxemia often have mixed or uncertain causes of respiratory failure. The optimal treatment for such patients is unclear. Both high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with HFNC versus NIV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC or NIV within 24 hours of arrival to the University of Michigan adult ED from January 2018 to December 2022. We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving NIV.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-d mortality, ventilator-free days, noninvasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a win ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 1154 patients were included. Seven hundred twenty-six (62.9%) received HFNC and 428 (37.1%) received NIV. We propensity score matched 668 of 1154 (57.9%) patients. Patients on NIV versus HFNC had lower 28-day mortality (16.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.033) and required noninvasive treatment for fewer hours (median 7.5 vs. 13.5, p < 0.001), but had no difference in ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range]: 28 [26, 28] vs. 28 [10.5, 28], p = 0.199). Win ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored NIV (1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with NIV compared with HFNC was associated with lower mortality and fewer composite major pulmonary adverse events calculated using a win ratio. These findings underscore the need for randomized controlled trials to further understand the impact of noninvasive respiratory support strategies.

Racial Differences in Accuracy of Predictive Models for High-Flow Nasal Cannula Failure in COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure in COVID-19, compare their performance to the respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index, and evaluate model accuracy by self-reported race.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Four Emory University Hospitals in Atlanta, GA.

PATIENTS

Adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and April 2022 who received HFNC therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission were included.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four types of supervised ML models were developed for predicting HFNC failure (defined as intubation or death within 7 d of HFNC initiation), using routine clinical variables from the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Models were trained on the first 60% (n = 594) of admissions and validated on the latter 40% (n = 390) of admissions to simulate prospective implementation. Among 984 patients included, 317 patients (32.2%) developed HFNC failure. eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) model had the highest area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting HFNC failure (0.707), and was the only model with significantly better performance than the ROX index (AUROC 0.616). XGB model had significantly worse performance in Black patients compared with White patients (AUROC 0.663 vs. 0.808, p = 0.02). Racial differences in the XGB model were reduced and no longer statistically significant when restricted to patients with nonmissing arterial blood gas data, and when XGB model was developed to predict mortality (rather than the composite outcome of failure, which could be influenced by biased clinical decisions for intubation).

CONCLUSIONS

Our XGB model had better discrimination for predicting HFNC failure in COVID-19 than the ROX index, but had racial differences in accuracy of predictions. Further studies are needed to understand and mitigate potential sources of biases in clinical ML models and to improve their equitability.

Acute Respiratory Failure From Early Pandemic COVID-19: Noninvasive Respiratory Support vs Mechanical Ventilation

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for initial respiratory support in patients with respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 is unclear, and the initial strategy may affect outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which initial respiratory support strategy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support and admitted to a large health care network were eligible for inclusion. We compared patients treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation by facemask or high-flow nasal oxygen) with patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The primary outcome was time to in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included unweighted and weighted assessments of mortality, lengths of stay (ICU and hospital), and time to intubation.

RESULTS

Nearly one-half of the 2,354 patients (47%) who met inclusion criteria received IMV first, and 53% received initial NIRS. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 38% (37% for IMV and 39% for NIRS). Initial NIRS was associated with an increased hazard of death compared with initial IMV (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94), but also an increased hazard of leaving the hospital sooner that waned with time (noninvasive support by time interaction: hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98).

INTERPRETATION

Patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure initially treated with NIRS showed an increased hazard of in-hospital death.

Association between Patient Race and Ethnicity and Use of Invasive Ventilation in the United States

Rationale: Outcomes for people with respiratory failure in the United States vary by patient race and ethnicity. Invasive ventilation is an important treatment initiated based on expert opinion. It is unknown whether the use of invasive ventilation varies by patient race and ethnicity. Objectives: To measure 1) the association between patient race and ethnicity and the use of invasive ventilation; and 2) the change in 28-day mortality mediated by any association. Methods: We performed a multicenter cohort study of nonintubated adults receiving oxygen within 24 hours of intensive care admission using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV, 2008-2019) and Phillips eICU (eICU, 2014-2015) databases from the United States. We modeled the association between patient race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White) and invasive ventilation rate using a Bayesian multistate model that adjusted for baseline and time-varying covariates, calculated hazard ratios (HRs), and estimated 28-day hospital mortality changes mediated by differential invasive ventilation use. We reported posterior means and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Results: We studied 38,258 patients, 52% (20,032) from MIMIC-IV and 48% (18,226) from eICU: 2% Asian (892), 11% Black (4,289), 5% Hispanic (1,964), and 81% White (31,113). Invasive ventilation occurred in 9.2% (3,511), and 7.5% (2,869) died. The adjusted rate of invasive ventilation was lower in Asian (HR, 0.82; CrI, 0.70-0.95), Black (HR, 0.78; CrI, 0.71-0.86), and Hispanic (HR, 0.70; CrI, 0.61-0.79) patients compared with White patients. For the average patient, lower rates of invasive ventilation did not mediate differences in 28-day mortality. For a patient on high-flow nasal cannula with inspired oxygen fraction of 1.0, the odds ratios for mortality if invasive ventilation rates were equal to the rate for White patients were 0.97 (CrI, 0.91-1.03) for Asian patients, 0.96 (CrI, 0.91-1.03) for Black patients, and 0.94 (CrI, 0.89-1.01) for Hispanic patients. Conclusions: Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients had lower rates of invasive ventilation than White patients. These decreases did not mediate harm for the average patient, but we could not rule out harm for patients with more severe hypoxemia.

Noninvasive vs Invasive Respiratory Support for Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Rationale

Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation for patients with early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. These modalities include noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, using either continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure, and nasal high flow using a high flow nasal cannula system. However, outcomes data historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than to mechanical ventilation.

Objectives

The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of in-hospital death and alive discharge in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure when treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support compared to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation.

Methods

We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify all patients with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes at a large healthcare network between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 into noninvasive respiratory support and invasive mechanical ventilation cohorts. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders, with estimated cumulative incidence curves. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow.

Results

During the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35 - 1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92 - 2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43 - 7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 - 1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25 - 3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92 - 2.74).

Conclusion

These observational data from a large healthcare network show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive. There are also potential differences between the noninvasive respiratory support modalities.

Emulating Target Trials Comparing Early and Delayed Intubation Strategies

BACKGROUND

Whether intubation should be initiated early in the clinical course of critically ill patients remains a matter of debate. Results from prior observational studies are difficult to interpret because of avoidable flaws including immortal time bias, inappropriate eligibility criteria, and unrealistic treatment strategies.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do treatment strategies that intubate patients early in the critical care admission improve 30-day survival compared with strategies that delay intubation?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We estimated the effect of strategies that require early intubation of critically ill patients compared with those that delay intubation. With data extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV database, we emulated three target trials, varying the flexibility of the treatment strategies and the baseline eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

Under unrealistically strict treatment strategies with broad eligibility criteria, the 30-day mortality risk was 7.1 percentage points higher for intubating early compared with delaying intubation (95% CI, 6.2-7.9). Risk differences were 0.4 (95% CI, -0.1 to 0.9) and -0.9 (95% CI, -2.5 to 0.7) percentage points in subsequent target trial emulations that included more realistic treatment strategies and eligibility criteria.

INTERPRETATION

When realistic treatment strategies and eligibility criteria are used, strategies that delay intubation result in similar 30-day mortality risks compared with those that intubate early. Delaying intubation ultimately avoids intubation in most patients.

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.

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

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.

Use of Mechanical Ventilation Across 3 Countries

Importance

The ability to provide invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a mainstay of modern intensive care; however, whether rates of IMV vary among countries is unclear.

Objective

To estimate the per capita rates of IMV in adults across 3 high-income countries with large variation in per capita intensive care unit (ICU) bed availability.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study examined 2018 data of patients aged 20 years or older who received IMV in England, Canada, and the US.

Exposure

The country in which IMV was received.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the age-standardized rate of IMV and ICU admissions in each country. Rates were stratified by age, specific diagnoses (acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolus, upper gastrointestinal bleed), and comorbidities (dementia, dialysis dependence). Data analyses were conducted between January 1, 2021, and December 1, 2022.

Results

The study included 59 873 hospital admissions with IMV in England (median [IQR] patient age, 61 [47-72] years; 59% men, 41% women), 70 250 in Canada (median [IQR] patient age, 65 [54-74] years; 64% men, 36% women), and 1 614 768 in the US (median [IQR] patient age, 65 [54-74] years; 57% men, 43% women). The age-standardized rate per 100 000 population of IMV was the lowest in England (131; 95% CI, 130-132) compared with Canada (290; 95% CI, 288-292) and the US (614; 95% CI, 614-615). Stratified by age, per capita rates of IMV were more similar across countries among younger patients and diverged markedly in older patients. Among patients aged 80 years or older, the crude rate of IMV per 100 000 population was highest in the US (1788; 95% CI, 1781-1796) compared with Canada (694; 95% CI, 679-709) and England (209; 95% CI, 203-214). Concerning measured comorbidities, 6.3% of admitted patients who received IMV in the US had a diagnosis of dementia (vs 1.4% in England and 1.3% in Canada). Similarly, 5.6% of admitted patients in the US were dependent on dialysis prior to receiving IMV (vs 1.3% in England and 0.3% in Canada).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that patients in the US received IMV at a rate 4 times higher than in England and twice that in Canada in 2018. The greatest divergence was in the use of IMV among older adults, and patient characteristics among those who received IMV varied markedly. The differences in overall use of IMV among these countries highlight the need to better understand patient-, clinician-, and systems-level choices associated with the varied use of a limited and expensive resource.

When Should We Intubate in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure?

Intubation during Hypoxemic Respiratory FailureThere is little evidence to guide the common and high-stakes decision to initiate invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this Tomorrow's Trial, Yarnell and Patel propose a randomized trial of different physiological thresholds for the initiation of invasive ventilation.