The effects of a 2-h trial of high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula versus Venturi mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized trial

Tools used to assess comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The aims were twofold: (a) to map tools documented in the literature to evaluate comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment; and (b) to assess if the retrieved tools have been validated for this purpose.

METHODS

A scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In July 2023, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were consulted. Studies assessing comfort in adult, paediatric, and neonatal patients undergoing HFNC were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles were included, among which nine (12.2 %) investigated comfort as the primary aim. Twenty-five different tools were found, classifiable into 14 types, mostly unidimensional and originating from those measuring pain. The most widely used was the Visual Analogic Scale (n = 27, 35.6 %) followed by the Numerical Rating Scale (n = 11, 14.5 %) and less defined generic tools (n = 10, 13.2 %) with different metrics (e.g. 0-5, 0-10, 0-100). Only the General Comfort Questionnaire and the Comfort Scale were specifically validated for the assessment of comfort among adults and children, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although the comfort of patients undergoing HFNC is widely investigated in the literature, there is a scarcity of tools specifically validated in this field. Those used have been validated mainly to assess pain, suggesting the need to inform patients to prevent confusion while measuring comfort during HFNC and to develop more research in the field.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Comfort assessment is an important aspect of nursing care. Given the lack of validation studies in the field, efforts in research are recommended.

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation, Intubation, and HFNT

Severe acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a major issue in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Standard oxygen therapy is the first-line therapy for ARF in the less severe cases. However, respiratory supports may be delivered in more severe clinical condition. In cases with life-threatening ARF, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) will be required. Noninvasive strategies such as high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) by either face mask or helmet might cover the gap between standard oxygen and IMV. The objective of all the supporting measures for ARF is to gain time for the antimicrobial treatment to cure the pneumonia. There is uncertainty regarding which patients with severe CAP are most likely to benefit from each noninvasive support strategy. HFNT may be the first-line approach in the majority of patients. While NIV may be relatively contraindicated in patients with excessive secretions, facial hair/structure resulting in air leaks or poor compliance, NIV may be preferable in those with increased work of breathing, respiratory muscle fatigue, and congestive heart failure, in which the positive pressure of NIV may positively impact hemodynamics. A trial of NIV might be considered for select patients with hypoxemic ARF if there are no contraindications, with close monitoring by an experienced clinical team who can intubate patients promptly if they deteriorate. In such cases, individual clinician judgement is key to choose NIV, interface, and settings. Due to the paucity of studies addressing IMV in this population, the protective mechanical ventilation strategies recommended by guidelines for acute respiratory distress syndrome can be reasonably applied in patients with severe CAP.

Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Adult Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several recently published randomized controlled trials have evaluated various noninvasive oxygenation strategies for the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Which available noninvasive oxygen strategies are effective for acute hypoxic respiratory failure?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, MedRxiv, and Research Square was conducted from inception to October 1, 2022. A random effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed, and the results are presented using absolute risk difference per 1,000 patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization and ICU stay, ventilator-free days, and level of comfort are reported.

RESULTS

Thirty-six trials (7,046 patients) were included. It was found that helmet CPAP probably reduces mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT) (231 fewer deaths per 1,000; 95% CI, 126-273 fewer) (moderate certainty). A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000; 95% CI, 40.5-157.5 fewer) (moderate certainty). All noninvasive oxygenation strategies may reduce the duration of hospitalization as compared with SOT (low certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation (4.84 days fewer; 95% CI, 2.33-7.36 days fewer) and helmet CPAP (1.74 days fewer; 95% CI, 4.49 fewer-1.01 more) may reduce the duration of ICU stay as compared with SOT (both low certainty). SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation and no different in comfort compared with an HFNC (both low certainty).

INTERPRETATION

A helmet interface for noninvasive ventilation probably reduces mortality and the risk of mechanical ventilation, as well as the duration of hospital and ICU stay. An HFNC probably reduces the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and may be as comfortable as SOT. Further research is necessary to understand the role of these interfaces in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange Versus Conventional Facemask Breathing for Preoxygenation During Rapid Sequence Induction

INTRODUCTION

Transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE), if used for pre-oxygenation and apnoeic oxygenation, has the propensity to extend the safe apnoea time and thereby decrease the incidence of desaturation during rapid sequence induction (RSI) for emergency surgeries. Hence, we proposed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of pre-oxygenation with the use of conventional facemask breathing versus THRIVE during RSI in patients undergoing general anaesthesia (GA) for emergency surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing RSI under GA for emergency abdominopelvic surgery were divided randomly into two groups. Patients were preoxygenated for three minutes with 100% oxygen via either a high-flow nasal cannula at a flow of 60 L/minute using THRIVE or a tightly-held, snuggly-fitting facemask at a flow of 12L/minute using a circle system. RSI was administered followed by laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) measured immediately after successful endotracheal intubation was our primary outcome. The lowest peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), apnoea time, number of attempts at laryngoscopy, use of any rescue manoeuvres, and any adverse event were also recorded. Data thus collected were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in PaO2 value was observed after successful intubation, lowest SpO2, apnoea time, number of attempts at laryngoscopy, use of any rescue manoeuvres, and adverse event between both the groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that though not superior to conventional facemasks, THRIVE is a safe, practicable, and efficient pre-oxygenation tool during RSI of GA for patients undergoing emergency surgeries.

Comparison of the efficacy and comfort of high-flow nasal cannula with different initial flow settings in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been proven effective in improving patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but a discussion of its use for initial flow settings still need to be provided. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and comfort evaluation of HFNC with different initial flow settings in patients with AHRF.

METHODS

Studies published by October 10, 2022, were searched exhaustively in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with STATA 17.0 and R software (version 4.2.1). A Bayesian framework was applied for this NMA. Comparisons of competing models based on the deviance information criterion (DIC) were used to select the best model for NMA. The primary outcome is the intubation at day 28. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term mortality, comfort score, length of ICU or hospital stay, and 24-h PaO₂/FiO₂.

RESULTS

This NMA included 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5774 patients. With NIV as the control, the HFNC_high group was significantly associated with lower intubation rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.56 to 0.93; moderate quality evidence) and short-term mortality (OR 0.81 95% CrI 0.69 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence). Using HFNC_Moderate (Mod) group (mean difference [MD] - 1.98 95% CrI -3.98 to 0.01; very low quality evidence) as a comparator, the HFNC_Low group had a slight advantage in comfort scores but no statistically significant difference. Of all possible interventions, the HFNC_High group had the highest probability of being the best in reducing intubation rates (73.04%), short-term (82.74%) and long-term mortality (67.08%). While surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA) indicated that the HFNC_Low group had the highest probability of being the best in terms of comfort scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The high initial flow settings (50-60 L/min) performed better in decreasing the occurrence of intubation and mortality, albeit with poor comfort scores. Treatment of HFNC for AHRF patients ought to be initiated from moderate flow rates (30-40 L/min), and individualized flow settings can make HFNC more sensible in clinical practice.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy versus Non-Invasive Ventilation in AIDS Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains the most common diagnosis for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective, open-labeled, randomized controlled trial at the ICU, Beijing Ditan Hospital, China. AIDS patients with ARF were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) immediately after randomization. The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation on day 28.

RESULTS

120 AIDS patients were enrolled and 56 patients in the HFNC group and 57 patients in the NIV group after secondary exclusion. Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) was the main etiology for ARF (94.7%). The intubation rates on day 28 were similar to HFNC and NIV (28.6% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.457). Kaplan-Meier curves showed no statistical difference in cumulative intubation rates between the two groups (log-rank test 0.401, p = 0.527). The number of airway care interventions in the HFNC group was fewer than in the NIV group (6 (5-7) vs. 8 (6-9), p < 0.001). The rate of intolerance in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (1.8% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.032). The VAS scores of device discomfort in the HFNC group were lower than that in the NIV group at 2 h (4 (4-5) vs. 5 (4-7), p = 0.042) and at 24 h (4 (3-4) vs. 4 (3-6), p = 0.036). The respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group at 24 h (25 ± 4/min vs. 27 ± 5/min, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Among AIDS patients with ARF, there was no statistical significance of the intubation rate between HFNC and NIV. HFNC had better tolerance and device comfort, fewer airway care interventions, and a lower respiratory rate than NIV.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Chictr.org (ChiCTR1900022241).

High-flow nasal oxygen in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A narrative review of the evidence before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is a type of non-invasive advanced respiratory support that allows the delivery of high-flow and humidified air through a nasal cannula. It can deliver a higher inspired oxygen fraction than conventional oxygen therapy (COT), improves secretion clearance, has a small positive end-expiratory pressure, and exhibits a washout effect on the upper air space that diminishes dead space ventilation. HFNO has been shown to reduce the work of breathing in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and has become an interesting option for non-invasive respiratory support. Evidence published before the COVID-19 pandemic suggested a possible reduction of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation compared to COT. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a substantial increase in AHRF worldwide, overwhelming both acute and intensive care unit capacity in most countries. This triggered new trials, adding to the body of evidence on HFNO in AHRF and its possible benefits compared to COT or non-invasive ventilation. We have summarized and discussed this recent evidence to inform the best supportive strategy in AHRF both related and unrelated to COVID-19.

Recent advances in the use of high flow nasal oxygen therapies

High flow nasal oxygen is a relatively new option for treating patients with respiratory failure, which decreases work of breathing, improves tidal volume, and modestly increases positive end expiratory pressure. Despite well-described physiologic benefits, the clinical impact of high flow nasal oxygen is still under investigation. In this article, we review the most recent findings on the clinical efficacy of high flow nasal oxygen in Type I, II, III, and IV respiratory failure within adult and pediatric patients. Additionally, we discuss studies across clinical settings, including emergency departments, intensive care units, outpatient, and procedural settings.

ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021

Background

The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline has created and released the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021.

Methods

The 2016 edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline covered clinical questions (CQs) that targeted only adults, but the present guideline includes 15 CQs for children in addition to 46 CQs for adults. As with the previous edition, we used a systematic review method with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as well as a degree of recommendation determination method. We also conducted systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy and network meta-analyses as a new method.

Results

Recommendations for adult patients with ARDS are described: we suggest against using serum C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels to identify bacterial pneumonia as the underlying disease (GRADE 2D); we recommend limiting tidal volume to 4–8 mL/kg for mechanical ventilation (GRADE 1D); we recommend against managements targeting an excessively low SpO₂ (PaO₂) (GRADE 2D); we suggest against using transpulmonary pressure as a routine basis in positive end-expiratory pressure settings (GRADE 2B); we suggest implementing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for those with severe ARDS (GRADE 2B); we suggest against using high-dose steroids (GRADE 2C); and we recommend using low-dose steroids (GRADE 1B). The recommendations for pediatric patients with ARDS are as follows: we suggest against using non-invasive respiratory support (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) (GRADE 2D), we suggest placing pediatric patients with moderate ARDS in the prone position (GRADE 2D), we suggest against routinely implementing NO inhalation therapy (GRADE 2C), and we suggest against implementing daily sedation interruption for pediatric patients with respiratory failure (GRADE 2D).

Conclusions

This article is a translated summary of the full version of the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021 published in Japanese (URL: https://www.jsicm.org/publication/guideline.html). The original text, which was written for Japanese healthcare professionals, may include different perspectives from healthcare professionals of other countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-022-00615-6.

ARDS clinical practice guideline 2021

BACKGROUND

The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline has created and released the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021.

METHODS

The 2016 edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline covered clinical questions (CQs) that targeted only adults, but the present guideline includes 15 CQs for children in addition to 46 CQs for adults. As with the previous edition, we used a systematic review method with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as well as a degree of recommendation determination method. We also conducted systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy and network meta-analyses as a new method.

RESULTS

Recommendations for adult patients with ARDS are described: we suggest against using serum C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels to identify bacterial pneumonia as the underlying disease (GRADE 2D); we recommend limiting tidal volume to 4-8 mL/kg for mechanical ventilation (GRADE 1D); we recommend against managements targeting an excessively low SpO₂ (PaO₂) (GRADE 2D); we suggest against using transpulmonary pressure as a routine basis in positive end-expiratory pressure settings (GRADE 2B); we suggest implementing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for those with severe ARDS (GRADE 2B); we suggest against using high-dose steroids (GRADE 2C); and we recommend using low-dose steroids (GRADE 1B). The recommendations for pediatric patients with ARDS are as follows: we suggest against using non-invasive respiratory support (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) (GRADE 2D); we suggest placing pediatric patients with moderate ARDS in the prone position (GRADE 2D); we suggest against routinely implementing NO inhalation therapy (GRADE 2C); and we suggest against implementing daily sedation interruption for pediatric patients with respiratory failure (GRADE 2D).

CONCLUSIONS

This article is a translated summary of the full version of the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021 published in Japanese (URL: https://www.jrs.or.jp/publication/jrs_guidelines/). The original text, which was written for Japanese healthcare professionals, may include different perspectives from healthcare professionals of other countries.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen in patients with haematological malignancy: a retrospective observational study

Patients with haematological malignancies (HM) face high rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNCO) is increasingly used to support HM patients in ward settings, but there is limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of HFNCO in this group. We retrospectively reviewed all HM patients receiving ward-based HFNCO, supervised by a critical care outreach service (CCOS), from January 2014 to January 2019. We included 130 consecutive patients. Forty-three (33.1%) were weaned off HFNCO without ICU admission. Eighty-seven (66.9%) were admitted to ICU, 20 (23.3%) required non-invasive and 34 (39.5%) invasive mechanical ventilation. ICU and hospital mortality were 42% and 55% respectively. Initial FiO₂ < 0.4 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.81, p = 0.019) and HFNCO use on the ward > 1 day (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04, 0.59, p = 0.006) were associated with reduced likelihood for ICU admission. Invasive ventilation was associated with reduced survival (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.1-0.7, p = 0.007). No significant adverse events were reported. HM patients receiving ward-based HFNCO have higher rates of ICU admission, but comparable hospital mortality to those requiring CCOS review without respiratory support. Results should be interpreted cautiously, as the model proposed depends on the existence of CCOS.

Association between timing of intubation and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Optimal timing of intubation is controversial. We attempted to investigate the association between timing of intubation and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.

METHODS

PubMed was systematically searched for studies reporting on mortality of critically ill patients undergoing early versus late intubation. Studies involving patients with new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were excluded because a relevant meta-analysis has been published. "Early" intubation was defined according to the authors of the included studies. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021284850).

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies involving 15,441 intubated patients (11,943 early, 3498 late) were included. All-cause mortality was lower in patients undergoing early versus late intubation (7338 deaths; 45.8% versus 53.5%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97; p = 0.001). This was also the case in the sensitivity analysis of studies defining "early" as intubation within 24 h from admission in the intensive care unit (6279 deaths; 45.8% versus 53.6%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Avoiding late intubation may be associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients without COVID-19.

Respiratory support strategy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) of respiratory management strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) have been reported, but no previous study has compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygenation therapy (SOT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for de novo AHRF. Therefore, we conducted an NMA to assess the effectiveness of these four respiratory strategies in patients with de novo AHRF.

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥18 years with AHRF and RCTs that compared two different oxygenation techniques (SOT, NIV, HFNO, or IMV) were selected. A frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The outcomes were mortality and intubation rates.

Results

Among the 14,263 records initially identified, 25 studies (3302 patients) were included. In the analysis of mortality, compared to SOT, NIV (risk ratio [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.95) reduced mortality; however, IMV (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.57–1.78) and HFNO (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66–1.20) did not. For assessments of the intubation incidence, compared to SOT, NIV use (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51–0.79) was associated with a reduction in intubation, but HFNO (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61–1.11) was not significant.

Conclusions

Our NMA demonstrated that only NIV showed clinical benefits compared with SOT as an initial respiratory strategy for de novo AHRF. Further investigation, especially comparison with HFNO, is warranted.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020213948, 11/11/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40981-022-00525-4.

Thirst Interventions in Adult Acute Care-What Are the Recommended Management Options and How Effective Are They?: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the scope and quality of evidence for thirst treatment in adult acute care.

METHODS

A systematic review was completed by 2 independent reviewers using MEDLINE, PubMed, BNI, EMBASE, EMCARE, and CINAHL databases and additional hand searching in June 2020. Interventions to relieve thirst for inpatients receiving acute care were included. Evidence was appraised against the levels of evidence for therapeutic studies, and a risk-of-bias assessment was completed for included studies. Outcomes are presented via narrative synthesis. Meta-analysis was planned.

RESULTS

Four studies (out of 844) were eligible reporting thirst outcomes from 611 critical care patients. Meta-analysis could not be completed because a priori criteria were not met. Two randomized controlled trials represented the highest level of evidence. Thirst assessment was completed via a self-reported scale in all reviewed works. Interventions included cold water sprays or swabs, menthol lip moisturizer, and use of humidification. Three works demonstrate reduced thirst scores; all interventions in these studies exploit cooling effects to the oropharynx with the aim of preabsorptive satiation of thirst. A humidified oxygen circuit showed a neutral response when compared with a nonhumidified circuit.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a limited but growing evidence base related to thirst treatment in the acute setting. Studies using a "bundle" of topical interventions incorporating cooling and menthol treatments showed positive effects in reducing symptom burden. Work to explore the scope of application for thirst treatment for patients unable to self-report, consideration of sustained effects, and a study of individual versus combined effects of bundle elements would be welcomed as the evidence base continues to develop.

German S3 Guideline: Oxygen Therapy in the Acute Care of Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Oxygen (O2) is a drug with specific biochemical and physiological properties, a range of effective doses and may have side effects. In 2015, 14% of over 55,000 hospital patients in the UK were using oxygen. 42% of patients received this supplemental oxygen without a valid prescription. Health care professionals are frequently uncertain about the relevance of hypoxemia and have low awareness about the risks of hyperoxemia. Numerous randomized controlled trials about targets of oxygen therapy have been published in recent years. A national guideline is urgently needed.

METHODS

A national S3 guideline was developed and published within the Program for National Disease Management Guidelines (AWMF) with participation of 10 medical associations. A literature search was performed until February 1, 2021, to answer 10 key questions. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) System ("The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used to classify types of studies in terms of validity. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the quality of evidence and for grading guideline recommendation, and a formal consensus-building process was performed.

RESULTS

The guideline includes 34 evidence-based recommendations about indications, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation of oxygen therapy in acute care. The main indication for O2 therapy is hypoxemia. In acute care both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia should be avoided. Hyperoxemia also seems to be associated with increased mortality, especially in patients with hypercapnia. The guideline provides recommended target oxygen saturation for acute medicine without differentiating between diagnoses. Target ranges for oxygen saturation are based depending on ventilation status risk for hypercapnia. The guideline provides an overview of available oxygen delivery systems and includes recommendations for their selection based on patient safety and comfort.

CONCLUSION

This is the first national guideline on the use of oxygen in acute care. It addresses health care professionals using oxygen in acute out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings.

Efficacy of non-invasive and invasive respiratory management strategies in adult patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Although non-invasive respiratory management strategies have been implemented to avoid intubation, patients with de novo acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are high risk of treatment failure. In the previous meta-analyses, the effect of non-invasive ventilation was not evaluated according to ventilation modes in those patients. Furthermore, no meta-analyses comparing non-invasive respiratory management strategies with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) have been reported. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation according to ventilation modes with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygen therapy (SOT), and IMV in adult patients with AHRF.

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults with AHRF and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two different respiratory management strategies (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), pressure support ventilation (PSV), HFNO, SOT, or IMV) were reviewed.

Results

We included 25 RCTs (3,302 participants: 27 comparisons). Using SOT as the reference, CPAP (risk ratio [RR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31–0.95; very low certainty) was associated significantly with a lower risk of mortality. Compared with SOT, PSV (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.62–1.06; low certainty) and HFNO (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.65–1.25; very low certainty) were not associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality. Compared with IMV, no non-invasive respiratory management was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality, although all certainties of evidence were very low. The probability of being best in reducing short-term mortality among all possible interventions was higher for CPAP, followed by PSV and HFNO; IMV and SOT were tied for the worst (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value: 93.2, 65.0, 44.1, 23.9, and 23.9, respectively).

Conclusions

When performing non-invasive ventilation among patients with de novo AHRF, it is important to avoid excessive tidal volume and lung injury. Although pressure support is needed for some of these patients, it should be applied with caution because this may lead to excessive tidal volume and lung injury.

Trial registration protocols.io (Protocol integer ID 49375, April 23, 2021). 10.17504/protocols.io.buf7ntrn.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03835-8.

Management of Adult Patients With Oxygen in the Acute Care Setting

Providing supplemental oxygen to hospitalized adults is a frequent practice and can be administered via a variety of devices. Oxygen therapy has evolved over the years, and clinicians should follow evidence-based practices to provide maximum benefit and avoid harm. This systematic review and subsequent clinical practice guidelines were developed to answer questions about oxygenation targets, monitoring, early initiation of high-flow oxygen (HFO), benefits of HFO compared to conventional oxygen therapy, and humidification of supplemental oxygen. Using a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 7 recommendations were developed to guide the delivery of supplemental oxygen to hospitalized adults: (1) aim for S_pO2 range of 94-98% for most hospitalized patients (88-92% for those with COPD), (2) the same S_pO2 range of 94-98% for critically ill patients, (3) promote early initiation of HFO, (4) consider HFO to avoid escalation to noninvasive ventilation, (5) consider HFO immediately postextubation to avoid re-intubation, (6) either HFO or conventional oxygen therapy may be used with patients who are immunocompromised, and (7) consider humidification for supplemental oxygen when flows > 4 L/min are used.

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.

ERS Clinical Practice Guidelines: High-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used non-invasive form of respiratory support in acute settings, however evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The European Respiratory Society Task Force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The Task Force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methods to summarize evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF.

RESULTS

The Task Force developed 8 conditional recommendations, suggesting using: 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxemic ARF, 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxemic ARF, 3)HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV, 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications, 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications, 6) HFNC over COT in non-surgical patients at low risk of extubation failure, 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV, 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic ARF.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of non-invasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

Critically ill cancer patient's resuscitation: a Belgian/French societies' consensus conference

To respond to the legitimate questions raised by the application of invasive methods of monitoring and life-support techniques in cancer patients admitted in the ICU, the European Lung Cancer Working Party and the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique, set up a consensus conference. The methodology involved a systematic literature review, experts' opinion and a final consensus conference about nine predefined questions1. Which triage criteria, in terms of complications and considering the underlying neoplastic disease and possible therapeutic limitations, should be used to guide admission of cancer patient to intensive care units?2. Which ventilatory support [High Flow Oxygenation, Non-invasive Ventilation (NIV), Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV), Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO)] should be used, for which complications and in which environment?3. Which support should be used for extra-renal purification, in which conditions and environment?4. Which haemodynamic support should be used, for which complications, and in which environment?5. Which benefit of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cancer patients and for which complications?6. Which intensive monitoring in the context of oncologic treatment (surgery, anti-cancer treatment …)?7. What specific considerations should be taken into account in the intensive care unit?8. Based on which criteria, in terms of benefit and complications and taking into account the neoplastic disease, patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (or equivalent) should receive cellular elements derived from the blood (red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets)?9. Which training is required for critical care doctors in charge of cancer patients?

High-flow nasal oxygen reduces endotracheal intubation: a randomized clinical trial

Background:

The benefits of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as primary intervention in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are still a matter in debate. Our objective was to compare HFNC therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in the prevention of endotracheal intubation in this group of patients.

Methods:

An open-label, controlled and single-centre clinical trial was conducted in patients with severe AHRF, defined by a PaO₂/FIO₂ ratio ⩽200, to compare HFNC with a control group (CG) treated by COT delivered through a face mask, with the need to perform intubation as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included tolerance of the HFNC device and to look for the predictive factors for intubation in these patients.

Results:

A total of 46 patients were included (22 in the COT group and 24 in the HFNC group) 48% of whom needed intubation: 63% in the COT group and 33% in the HFNC group, with significant differences both in intention to treat [χ² = 4.2; p = 0.04, relative risk (RR) = 0.5; confidence interval (CI) 95%: 0.3–1.0] and also in treatment analysis (χ² = 4.7; p = 0.03; RR = 0.5; IC 95%: 0.3–0.9) We obtained a number needed to treat (NNT) = 3 patients treated to avoid an intubation. Intubation occurred significantly later in the HFNC group. Estimated PaO₂/FIO₂, respiratory rate and dyspnea were significantly better in the HFNC group. Patients treated with HFNC who required intubation presented significant worsening after the first 8 h, as compared with non-intubated HFNC group patients. Mortality was 22% with no differences. The HFNC group patients were hospitalized for almost half of the time in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the ward, with significantly less hospital length of stay. A total of 14 patients in the HFNC group (58%) complained of excessive heat and 17% of noise; 3 patients did not tolerate HFNC.

Conclusion:

Patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who tolerate HFNC present a significantly lower need for endotracheal intubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy.

Clinical Trial Register

EUDRA CT number: 2012-001671-36

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

[German S3 Guideline - Oxygen Therapy in the Acute Care of Adult Patients]

BACKGROUND

 Oxygen (O₂) is a drug with specific biochemical and physiologic properties, a range of effective doses and may have side effects. In 2015, 14 % of over 55 000 hospital patients in the UK were using oxygen. 42 % of patients received this supplemental oxygen without a valid prescription. Healthcare professionals are frequently uncertain about the relevance of hypoxemia and have low awareness about the risks of hyperoxemia. Numerous randomized controlled trials about targets of oxygen therapy have been published in recent years. A national guideline is urgently needed.

METHODS

 A S3-guideline was developed and published within the Program for National Disease Management Guidelines (AWMF) with participation of 10 medical associations. Literature search was performed until Feb 1st 2021 to answer 10 key questions. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) System ("The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used to classify types of studies in terms of validity. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used and for assessing the quality of evidence and for grading guideline recommendation and a formal consensus-building process was performed.

RESULTS

 The guideline includes 34 evidence-based recommendations about indications, prescription, monitoring and discontinuation of oxygen therapy in acute care. The main indication for O₂ therapy is hypoxemia. In acute care both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia should be avoided. Hyperoxemia also seems to be associated with increased mortality, especially in patients with hypercapnia. The guideline provides recommended target oxygen saturation for acute medicine without differentiating between diagnoses. Target ranges for oxygen saturation are depending on ventilation status risk for hypercapnia. The guideline provides an overview of available oxygen delivery systems and includes recommendations for their selection based on patient safety and comfort.

CONCLUSION

 This is the first national guideline on the use of oxygen in acute care. It addresses healthcare professionals using oxygen in acute out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings. The guideline will be valid for 3 years until June 30, 2024.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased.

PURPOSE

To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k = 11) or COT (k = 21).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized.

CONCLUSION

Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

Appropriate Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Hospitalized Patients for Initial or Postextubation Management of Acute Respiratory Failure: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure. It is based on the best available evidence on the benefits and harms of HFNO, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of HFNO. The patient-centered health outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day hospital readmissions, hospital-acquired pneumonia, days of intubation or reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU transfers, patient comfort, dyspnea, delirium, barotrauma, compromised nutrition, gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge, discharge disposition, and skin breakdown. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated in a hospital setting (including emergency departments, hospital wards, intermediate or step-down units, and ICUs).

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than noninvasive ventilation in hospitalized adults for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than conventional oxygen therapy for hospitalized adults with postextubation acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

SpO2/FiO2 as a predictor of high flow nasal cannula outcomes in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a useful treatment modality for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in children. We compared the ability of the oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (S/F) and arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (P/F) to predict HFNC outcomes in children with AHRF. This study included children treated with HFNC due to AHRF from April 2013 to March 2019 at the Severance Children’s Hospital. HFNC failure was defined as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trends of S/F and P/F during HFNC were analyzed. To predict HFNC outcomes, a nomogram was constructed based on predictive factors. A total of 139 patients with arterial blood gas data were included in the S/F and P/F analyses. S/F < 230 at initiation showed high prediction accuracy for HFNC failure (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.751). Univariate analyses identified S/F < 230 at HFNC initiation and < 200 at 2 h (odds ratio [OR] 12.83, 95% CI 5.06–35.84), and hemato-oncologic disease (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.12–12.78) as significant predictive factors of HFNC failure. The constructed nomogram had a highly predictive performance, with a concordance index of 0.765 and 0.831 for the exploratory and validation groups, respectively. S/F may be used as a predictor of HFNC outcomes. Our nomogram with S/F for HFNC failure within 2 h may prevent delayed intubation in children with AHRF.

Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive respiratory support devices may reduce the tracheal intubation rate compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). To date, few studies have compared high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of three respiratory support devices in patients with acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥ 16 years with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and randomized-controlled trials that compared two different oxygenation devices (COT, NPPV, or HFNC) before tracheal intubation were included. A frequentist-based approach with a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The network meta-analysis was performed using the GRADE Working Group approach. The outcomes were short-term mortality and intubation rate.

RESULTS

Among 5507 records, 27 studies (4618 patients) were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Compared with COT, NPPV and HFNC use tended to reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.88 and 0.93, respectively; 95% confidence intervals, 0.76-1.01 and 0.80-1.08, respectively; both low certainty) and lower the risk of endotracheal intubation (0.81 and 0.78; 0.72-0.91 and 0.68-0.89, respectively; both low certainty); however, short-term mortality or intubation rates did not differ (0.94 and 1.04, respectively; 0.78-1.15 and 0.88-1.22, respectively; both low certainty) between NPPV and HFNC use.

CONCLUSION

NPPV and HFNC use are associated with a decreased risk of endotracheal intubation; however, there are no significant differences in short-term mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139105 , 01/21/2020).

Survival in Immunocompromised Patients Ultimately Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Pooled Individual Patient Data Analysis

Rationale: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is associated with high mortality in immunocompromised patients, particularly when invasive mechanical ventilation is needed. Therefore, noninvasive oxygenation/ventilation strategies have been developed to avoid intubation, with uncertain impact on mortality, especially when intubation is delayed. Objectives: We sought to report trends of survival over time in immunocompromised patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. The impact of delayed intubation after failure of noninvasive strategies was also assessed. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient data of studies that focused on immunocompromised adult patients with ARF requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Studies published in English were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central (2008-2018). Individual patient data were requested from corresponding authors for all identified studies. We used mixed-effect models to estimate the effect of delayed intubation on hospital mortality and described mortality rates over time. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 11,087 patients were included (24 studies, three controlled trials, and 21 cohorts), of whom 7,736 (74%) were intubated within 24 hours of ICU admission (early intubation). The crude mortality rate was 53.2%. Adjusted survivals improved over time (from 1995 to 2017, odds ratio [OR] for hospital mortality per year, 0.96 [0.95-0.97]). For each elapsed day between ICU admission and intubation, mortality was higher (OR, 1.38 [1.26-1.52]; P < 0.001). Early intubation was significantly associated with lower mortality (OR, 0.83 [0.72-0.96]), regardless of initial oxygenation strategy. These results persisted after propensity score analysis (matched OR associated with delayed intubation, 1.56 [1.44-1.70]). Conclusions: In immunocompromised intubated patients, survival has improved over time. Time between ICU admission and intubation is a strong predictor of mortality, suggesting a detrimental effect of late initial oxygenation failure.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.

Impact of HFNC application on mortality and intensive care length of stay in acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

In Covid-19 pneumonia, high mortality rates reported in intubated patients have raised non-invasive methods of respiratory support.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the impact of HFNC application on intubation requirement, intensive care length of stay, and short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

MATERIAL-METHOD

Patients receiving oxygen by reservoir mask or HFNC therapy in our intensive care units due to COVID-19 pneumonia were included in the study. Group H consisted of patients who received HFNC, and Group K consisted of patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (COT). The number of patients intubated, duration of intensive care stay and short-term mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

43 patients were included. The short-term mortality and the number of patients with intubation need was lower in Group H. There was no significant difference between the Groups in the length of intensive care stay.

CONCLUSION

Administration of HFNC in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia decreases the need for intubation and mortality.

Performance of the ROX index to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula for acute respiratory failure

Background

Delayed intubation is associated with high mortality. There is a lack of objective criteria to decide the time of intubation. We assessed a recently described combined oxygenation index (ROX index) to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients. The study is a secondary analysis of randomized trials in immunocompromised patients, including all patients who received high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The first objective was to evaluate the accuracy of the ROX index to predict intubation for patients with acute respiratory failure.

Results

In the study, 302 patients received HFNC. Acute respiratory failure was mostly related to pneumonia (n = 150, 49.7%). Within 2 (1–3) days, 115 (38.1%) patients were intubated. The ICU mortality rate was 27.4% (n = 83). At 6 h, the ROX index was lower for patients who needed intubation compared with those who did not [4.79 (3.69–7.01) vs. 6.10 (4.48–8.68), p < 0.001]. The accuracy of the ROX index to predict intubation was poor [AUC = 0.623 (0.557–0.689)], with low performance using the threshold previously found (4.88). In multivariate analysis, a higher ROX index was still independently associated with a lower intubation rate (OR = 0.89 [0.82–0.96], p = 0.04).

Conclusion

A ROX index greater than 4.88 appears to have a poor ability to predict intubation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, although it remains highly associated with the risk of intubation and may be useful to stratify such risk in future studies.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy for Exertional Dyspnea in Patients with Cancer: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Exertional dyspnea is common in patients with cancer and limits their function. The impact of high-flow nasal cannula on exertional dyspnea in nonhypoxemic patients is unclear. In this double-blind, parallel-group, randomized trial, we assessed the effect of flow rate (high vs. low) and gas (oxygen vs. air) on exertional dyspnea in nonhypoxemic patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with cancer with oxygen saturation >90% at rest and exertion completed incremental and constant work (80% maximal) cycle ergometry while breathing low-flow air at 2 L/minute. They were then randomized to receive high-flow oxygen, high-flow air, low-flow oxygen, or low-flow air while performing symptom-limited endurance cycle ergometry at 80% maximal. The primary outcome was modified 0-10 Borg dyspnea intensity scale at isotime. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea unpleasantness, exercise time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were enrolled, and 44 completed the study (mean age 63; 41% female). Compared with low-flow air at baseline, dyspnea intensity was significantly lower at isotime with high-flow oxygen (mean change, -1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1, -0.12) and low-flow oxygen (-1.83; 95% CI, -2.7, -0.9), but not high-flow air (-0.2; 95% CI, -0.97, 0.6) or low-flow air (-0.5; 95% CI, -1.3, 0.4). Compared with low-flow air, high-flow oxygen also resulted in significantly longer exercise time (difference + 2.5 minutes, p = .009), but not low-flow oxygen (+0.39 minutes, p = .65) or high-flow air (+0.63 minutes, p = .48). The interventions were well tolerated without significant adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary findings support that high-flow oxygen improved both exertional dyspnea and exercise duration in nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02357134).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In this four-arm, double-blind, randomized clinical trial examining the role of high-flow nasal cannula on exertional dyspnea in patients with cancer without hypoxemia, high-flow oxygen, but not high-flow air, resulted in significantly lower dyspnea scores and longer exercise time. High-flow oxygen delivered by high-flow nasal cannula devices may improve clinically relevant outcomes even in patients without hypoxemia.

High-Flow Oxygen and High-Flow Air for Dyspnea in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer: A Pilot Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The effect of high-flow oxygen (HFOx) and high-flow air (HFAir) on dyspnea in nonhypoxemic patients is not known. We assessed the effect of HFOx, HFAir, low-flow oxygen (LFOx), and low-flow air (LFAir) on dyspnea.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

This double-blind, 4×4 crossover clinical trial enrolled hospitalized patients with cancer who were dyspneic at rest and nonhypoxemic (oxygen saturation >90% on room air). Patients were randomized to 10 minutes of HFOx, HFAir, LFOx, and LFAir in different orders. The flow rate was titrated between 20-60 L/minute in the high-flow interventions and 2 L/minute in the low-flow interventions. The primary outcome was dyspnea numeric rating scale (NRS) "now" where 0 = none and 10 = worst.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (mean age 51 years, 58% female) completed 55 interventions in a random order. The absolute change of dyspnea NRS between 0 and 10 minutes was -1.8 (SD 1.7) for HFOx, -1.8 (2.0) for HFAir, -0.5 (0.8) for LFOx, and - 0.6 (1.2) for LFAir. In mixed model analysis, HFOx provided greater dyspnea relief than LFOx (mean difference [95% confidence interval] -0.80 [-1.45, -0.15]; p = .02) and LFAir (-1.24 [-1.90, -0.57]; p < .001). HFAir also provided significantly greater dyspnea relief than LFOx (-0.95 [-1.61, -0.30]; p = .005) and LFAir (-1.39 [-2.05, -0.73]; p < .001). HFOx was well tolerated. Seven (54%) patients who tried all interventions blindly preferred HFOx and four (31%) preferred HFAir.

CONCLUSION

We found that HFOx and HFAir provided a rapid and clinically significant reduction of dyspnea at rest in hospitalized nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02932332).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This double-blind, 4×4 crossover trial examined the effect of oxygen or air delivered at high- or low-flow rates on dyspnea in hospitalized nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. High-flow oxygen and high-flow air were significantly better at reducing dyspnea than low-flow oxygen/air, supporting a role for palliation beyond oxygenation.

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure and post-mechanical ventilation

Background

Oxygen therapy is essential in the management of patients with respiratory problem, including after endotracheal extubation. Conventional oxygen devices may be inadequate in patients requiring high inspiratory flow. HFNC has a growing place in the repertoire of respiratory therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency, tolerability, and outcome of HFNC in patients with respiratory failure and post-mechanical ventilation patients in comparison to NIV and conventional oxygen devices.

Results

In case of respiratory failure patients, there was non-significant statistical difference between HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy and NIV, regarding the difference in ABGs, vital data, and dyspnea scores, at successive time points, except for PO2 after 30 min in patients received NIV, which was significantly higher. There was non-significant statistical difference between the three mentioned modalities of oxygen therapy regarding comfort and clinical outcome.

In case of post-extubation patients, there was non-significant statistical difference between the HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy regarding clinical parameters, comfort and outcome.

Conclusions

HFNC is comparable to conventional oxygen therapy in respiratory failure and post-extubation patients. HFNC is comparable to NIV in respiratory failure patients.

The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: a clinical practice guideline

Purpose

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings.

Methods

We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions.

Results

The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty).

Conclusions

This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Critically ill patients with cancer: A clinical perspective

Cancer patients account for 15% of all admissions to intensive care unit (ICU) and 5% will experience a critical illness resulting in ICU admission. Mortality rates have decreased during the last decades because of new anticancer therapies and advanced organ support methods. Since early critical care and organ support is associated with improved survival, timely identification of the onset of clinical signs indicating critical illness is crucial to avoid delaying. This article focused on relevant and current information on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of the main clinical disorders experienced by critically ill cancer patients.

The Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in the ICU as a First-Line Therapy for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Secondary to Coronavirus Disease 2019

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

Limited evidence is available regarding the role of high-flow nasal oxygen in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019. Our objective was to characterize outcomes associated with high-flow nasal oxygen use in critically ill adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Design:

Observational cohort study between March 18, 2020, and June 3, 2020.

Setting:

Nine ICUs at three university-affiliated hospitals in Philadelphia, PA.

Patients:

Adult ICU patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 infection admitted with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main Results:

Of 266 coronavirus disease 2019 ICU admissions during the study period, 124 (46.6%) received some form of noninvasive respiratory support. After exclusions, we analyzed 83 patients who were treated with high-flow nasal oxygen as a first-line therapy at or near the time of ICU admission. Patients were predominantly male (63.9%). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (60.2%). Progression to invasive mechanical ventilation was common, occurring in 58 patients (69.9%). Of these, 30 (51.7%) were intubated on the same day as ICU admission. As of June 30, 2020, hospital mortality rate was 32.9% and the median hospital length of stay was 15 days. Among survivors, the most frequent discharge disposition was home (51.0%). In comparing patients who received high-flow nasal oxygen alone (n = 54) with those who received high-flow nasal oxygen in conjunction with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation via face mask (n = 29), there were no differences in the rates of endotracheal intubation or other clinical and utilization outcomes.

Conclusions:

We observed an overall high usage of high-flow nasal oxygen in our cohort of critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019. Rates of endotracheal intubation and mortality in this cohort were on par with and certainly not higher than other published series. These findings should prompt further considerations regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in the management algorithm for coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission

PURPOSE

We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.

SOURCE

Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

Effect of oxygenation modalities among patients with postoperative respiratory failure: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Postoperative respiratory failure is associated with increased perioperative complications. Our aim is to compare outcomes between non-invasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), and standard oxygen in patients at high-risk for or with established postoperative respiratory failure.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were reviewed from inception to September 2019. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV, HFNC, and standard oxygen in patients at high risk for or with established postoperative respiratory failure. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and Bayesian 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

Results

Nine RCTs representing 1865 patients were included (the mean age was 61.6 ± 10.2 and 64.4% were males). In comparison with standard oxygen, NIV was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.23; 95% Cr.I. 0.10–0.46), mortality (OR 0.45; 95% Cr.I. 0.27–0.71), and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections (OR 0.43, 95% Cr.I. 0.25–0.70). Compared to standard oxygen, HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.28, 95% Cr.I. 0.08–0.76) and ICU-acquired infections (OR 0.41; 95% Cr.I. 0.20–0.80), but not mortality (OR 0.58; 95% Cr.I. 0.26–1.22). There were no significant differences between HFNC and NIV regarding different outcomes. In a subgroup analysis, we observed a mortality benefit with NIV over standard oxygen in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgeries but not in abdominal surgeries. Furthermore, in comparison with standard oxygen, NIV and HFNC were associated with lower intubation rates following cardiothoracic surgeries while only NIV reduced the intubation rates following abdominal surgeries.

Conclusions

Among patients with post-operative respiratory failure, HFNC and NIV were associated with significantly reduced rates of intubation and ICU-acquired infections compared with standard oxygen. Moreover, NIV was associated with reduced mortality in comparison with standard oxygen.

Association of Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies With All-Cause Mortality in Adults With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen may be more effective than standard oxygen therapy alone in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with mortality and endotracheal intubation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

DATA SOURCES

The following bibliographic databases were searched from inception until April 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS. No limits were applied to language, publication year, sex, or race.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials enrolling adult participants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure comparing high-flow nasal oxygen, face mask noninvasive ventilation, helmet noninvasive ventilation, or standard oxygen therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses using a bayesian framework to derive risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences along with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were conducted. GRADE methodology was used to rate the certainty in findings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 90 days. A secondary outcome was endotracheal intubation up to 30 days.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized clinical trials (3804 participants) were included. Compared with standard oxygen, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.24-0.63]; absolute risk difference, -0.19 [95% CrI, -0.37 to -0.09]; low certainty) and face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.68-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.06 [95% CrI, -0.15 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with a lower risk of mortality (21 studies [3370 patients]). Helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.26 [95% CrI, 0.14-0.46]; absolute risk difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.60 to -0.16]; low certainty), face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.62-0.90]; absolute risk difference, -0.12 [95% CrI, -0.25 to -0.05]; moderate certainty) and high-flow nasal oxygen (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.55-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.11 [95% CrI, -0.27 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with lower risk of endotracheal intubation (25 studies [3804 patients]). The risk of bias due to lack of blinding for intubation was deemed high.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this network meta-analysis of trials of adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies compared with standard oxygen therapy was associated with lower risk of death. Further research is needed to better understand the relative benefits of each strategy.

Noninvasive ventilation failure in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: the role of sepsis and septic shock

BACKGROUND

Sepsis and septic shock are common in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients. However, studies on the association between sepsis and NIV failure are lacking.

METHODS

A prospective multi-center observational study was performed in 16 Chinese intensive care units (ICUs). Patients who used NIV due to hypoxemic respiratory failure were enrolled. Sepsis and septic shock were diagnosed according to the guideline of sepsis-3.

RESULTS

A total of 519 patients were enrolled. Sepsis developed in 365 patients (70%) and septic shock developed in 79 patients (15%). However, 75 patients (14%) had no sepsis. NIV failure was 23%, 38%, and 61% in patients, with no sepsis, sepsis, and septic shock, respectively. Multivariate analysis found that sepsis [odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-3.61] and septic shock (OR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.12-5.45) were independently associated with NIV failure. In sepsis and septic shock population, the NIV failure was 13%, 31%, 37%, 53%, and 67% in patients with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores of ⩽2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and ⩾9, respectively. Patients with nonpulmonary induced sepsis had similar NIV failure rate compared with those with pulmonary induced sepsis, but had higher proportion of septic shock (37% versus 10%, p ⩽ 0.01) and lower ICU mortality (10% versus 22%, p ⩽ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis was associated with NIV failure in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and the association was stronger in septic shock patients. NIV failure increased with the increase of organ dysfunction caused by sepsis. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy as an emerging option for respiratory failure: the present and the future

Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been considered for decades as frontline treatment for acute or chronic respiratory failure. However, COT can be insufficient in severe hypoxaemia whereas NIV, although highly effective, is poorly tolerated by patients and its use requires a specific expertise. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an emerging technique, designed to provide oxygen at high flows with an optimal degree of heat and humidification, which is well tolerated and easy to use in all clinical settings. Physiologically, HFNC reduces the anatomical dead space and improves carbon dioxide wash-out, reduces the work of breathing, and generates a positive end-expiratory pressure and a constant fraction of inspired oxygen. Clinically, HFNC effectively reduces dyspnoea and improves oxygenation in respiratory failure from a variety of aetiologies, thus avoiding escalation to more invasive supports. In recent years it has been adopted to treat de novo hypoxaemic respiratory failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), postintubation hypoxaemia and used for palliative respiratory care. While the use of HFNC in acute respiratory failure is now routine as an alternative to COT and sometimes NIV, new potential applications in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (e.g. domiciliary treatment of patients with stable COPD), are currently under evaluation and will become a topic of great interest in the coming years.

The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on the Outcome of Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as a respiratory support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in immunocompromised patients. Thus, this meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on the outcomes in immunocompromised patients with ARF. The Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to November 2018. Materials and Methods: Only clinical studies comparing the effect of HFNC with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF were included. The outcome included the rate of intubation, mortality and length of stay (LOS). Results: A total of eight studies involving 1433 immunocompromised patients with ARF were enrolled. The pooled analysis showed that HFNC was significantly associated with a reduced intubation rate (risk ratio (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.94, I2 = 0%). Among subgroup analysis, HFNC was associated with a lower intubation rate than COT (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95, I2 = 0%) and NIV (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.86, I2 = 0%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between HFNC and control groups in terms of 28-day mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04, I2 = 48%), and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05, I2 = 57%). The ICU and hospital LOS were similar between HFNC and control groups (ICU LOS: mean difference, 0.49 days; 95% CI, -0.25-1.23, I2 = 69%; hospital LOS: mean difference, -0.12 days; 95% CI, -1.86-1.61, I2 = 64%). Conclusions: Use of HFNC may decrease the intubation rate in immunocompromised patients with ARF compared with the control group, including COT and NIV. However, HFNC could not provide additional survival benefit or shorten the LOS. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy: clinical practice in intensive care units

Background

Despite the extensive use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in intensive care units (ICU) for acute respiratory failure (ARF), its daily clinical practice has not been assessed. We designed a regional survey in ICUs in North-west France to evaluate ICU physicians’ clinical practice with HFNC.

Materials and methods

We sent an observational survey to ICU physicians from 34 French ICUs over a 6-month period in 2016–2017. The survey included questions regarding the indications and expected efficiency of HFNC, practical aspects of use (initiation, weaning) and satisfaction. Comparisons between junior and senior ICU physicians were performed using a Fischer exact test.

Results

Among the 235 ICU physicians contacted, 137 responded (58.3%) all of whom regularly used HFNC. Hypoxemic ARF was considered a good indication for HFNC by all 137, but only 30% expected HFNC success (i.e., avoiding intubation in at least 60% of cases). Among hypoxemic indications, 30% of juniors considered acute pulmonary edema a good indication versus 74% of seniors (p < 0.0001). Hypercapnic ARF was considered a good indication by 33% with only 2% expecting HFNC success. A need for conventional oxygen therapy ≥ 6 L/min justified HFNC therapy for 40% and ≥ 9 L/min for 39% of responders. 58% of ICU physicians started HFNC therapy with a FiO₂ ≥ 50% and 28% with a gas flow ≥ 50 L/min. Practices for HFNC weaning were heterogeneous: 48% considered a FiO₂ ≤ 30%; whereas, 30% considered a FiO₂ ≤ 30% with a high flow ≤ 20 L/min. Criteria for HFNC failure (i.e., need for intubation) were ventilatory pauses or arrest (97%), persistent hypoxemia (95%), respiratory acidosis (81%), worsening of breathing (95%, 100% of seniors and 86% of juniors, p = 0.003), bronchial congestion (75%) and circulatory failure (61%, 72% of seniors and 44% of juniors, p = 0.007).

Conclusion

HFNC is used by ICU physicians in many situations of ARF, despite their relatively low expectations of success, especially in cases of hypercapnia. Clinical practices appear somewhat heterogeneous. Despite the physiological benefit of HFNC, further prospective observational studies are still required on HFNC outcomes and daily practices.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation utilization in respiratory failure

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) represents a new oxygenation system to be used in the treatment of respiratory emergencies. During HFNC therapy, the active humidification and air heating system allow the patient to tolerate higher flows by favouring physiologic mucociliary clearance and improving fluidity of respiratory secretions. Following this, FiO₂ values are more stable and reliable, by reducing losses and minimizing ambient air entrainment. Several clinical trials in acute respiratory failure patients have suggested lower rate of invasive mechanical ventilation, improved comfort and enhanced survival by early HFNC utilization in comparison with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). This review aims to summarize the main evidences on the use of HFNC in the acute setting and its major indications.

The effects of high-flow nasal cannula on intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in the prevention of intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients compared to conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation.

Methods

This systematic review was performed through an electronic database search of articles published from 1966 to April 2018. The primary outcome was the need for intubation or re-intubation. The secondary outcomes were therapy escalation, mortality at the longest follow-up, hospital mortality and the need for noninvasive ventilation.

Results

Seventeen studies involving 3,978 patients were included. There was no reduction in the need for intubation or re-intubation with high-flow nasal cannula (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52 - 1.01; p = 0.056). There was no difference in the need for therapy escalation (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.08, p = 0.144), mortality at the longest follow-up (OR 0.94; 95%CI 0.70 - 1.25; p = 0.667), hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.56 - 1.26; p = 0.391) or noninvasive ventilation (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39 - 1.05, p = 0.075). In the trial sequential analysis, the number of events included was lower than the optimal information size with a global type I error > 0.05.

Conclusion

In the present study and setting, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a reduction of the need for intubation or re-intubation in critically ill patients.

Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Immunocompromised Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission among immunocompromised patients. Invasive mechanical ventilation is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of various oxygenation strategies including noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), and conventional oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with AHRF.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were reviewed from inception to December 2018. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different modalities of initial oxygenation strategies in immunocompromised patients with AHRF. Our primary outcome was the need for intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation while secondary outcomes were ICU acquired infections and short- and long-term mortality. Data were extracted separately and independently by 2 reviewers. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to calculate odds ratio (OR) and Bayesian 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were included (1570 patients, mean age 61.1 ± 13.8 years with 64% male). Noninvasive ventilation was associated with a significantly reduced intubation rate compared with standard oxygen therapy (OR: 0.53; 95% CrI: 0.26-0.91). There were no significant reductions of intubation between NIV versus HFNC (OR: 0.83; 95% CrI: 0.35-2.11) or HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy (OR: 0.65; 95% CrI: 0.26-1.24). There were no significant differences between all groups regarding short-term (28-day or ICU) mortality or long-term (90-day or hospital) mortality or ICU-acquired infections (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Among immunocompromised patients with AHRF, NIV was associated with a significant reduction of intubation compared with standard oxygen therapy. There were no significant differences among all oxygenation strategies regarding mortality and ICU-acquired infections.