High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: an observational cohort study

Failure Prediction of High-Flow Nasal Cannula at the Conventional Oxygen Therapy Phase in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has been increasing in the emergency department (ED). However, studies are lacking on the prediction of HFNC failure before therapy initiation in the ED. We investigated whether the existing indices, such as the ratio of pulse oximetry oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate (ROX) and ratio of ROX index to heart rate (ROX-HR), can accurately predict HFNC failure at the conventional oxygen therapy phase in the ED.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included patients treated with HFNC in the ED. The ROX and ROX-HR indices were calculated before initiating HFNC. An estimated fraction of inspired oxygen was used for conventional oxygen therapy. We plotted each index's receiver operating characteristics curve and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic capacity. The optimal cutoff values were assessed using the Youden index. The primary outcome was HFNC failure, defined as intubation in the ED.

RESULTS

Among the 97 included patients, 25 (25.8%) failed HFNC therapy in the ED. The ROX and ROX-HR indices measured before initiating HFNC showed AUCs of 0.709 and 0.754, respectively. A ROX index of <5.614 and a ROX-HR index of <6.152 were associated with a high risk of intubation, even after correcting for confounding variables.

CONCLUSION

The ROX and ROX-HR indices measured before initiating HFNC provide a relatively fair predictive value of HFNC failure in the ED.

How I manage acute respiratory failure in patients with hematological malignancies

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is common in patients with hematological malignancies notably those with acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. ARF is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, with a 35% case fatality rate. Failure to identify the ARF cause is associated with mortality. A prompt, well-designed diagnostic workup is crucial. The investigations are chosen according to pretest diagnostic probabilities, estimated by the DIRECT approach: D stands for delay, or time since diagnosis; I for pattern of immune deficiency; R and T for radiological evaluation; E refers to clinical experience, and C to the clinical picture. Thorough familiarity with rapid diagnostic tests helps to decrease the use of bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage, which can cause respiratory status deterioration in those patients with hypoxemia. A prompt etiological diagnosis shortens the time on unnecessary empirical treatments, decreasing iatrogenic harm and costs. High-quality collaboration between intensivists and hematologists and all crossdisciplinary health care workers is paramount. All oxygen delivery systems should be considered to minimize invasive mechanical ventilation. Treatment of the malignancy is started or continued in the ICU under the guidance of the hematologists. The goal is to use the ICU as a bridge to recovery, with the patient returning to the hematology ward in sufficiently good clinical condition to receive optimal anticancer treatment.

Continuous positive airway pressure versus high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The relative effectiveness of initial non-invasive respiratory strategies for acute respiratory failure using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of CPAP and HFNC on reducing the risk of meeting the prespecified criteria for intubation and improving clinical outcomes of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The primary endpoint was the time taken to meet the prespecified criteria for intubation within 28 days.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned to the CPAP or HFNC group. Eleven (28.9%) in the CPAP group and twenty (42.6%) in the HFNC group met the criteria for intubation within 28 days. Compared with HFNC, CPAP reduced the risk of meeting the intubation criteria (hazard ratio [HR], 0.327; 95% CI, 0.148-0.724; p = 0.006). There were no significant between-group differences in the intubation rates, in-hospital and 28-day mortality rates, ventilator-free days, duration of the need for respiratory support, or duration of hospitalization for respiratory illness. Pulmonary oxygenation was significantly better in the CPAP group, with significantly lower pH and higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide, but there were no differences in the respiratory rate between groups. CPAP and HFNC were associated with few possibly causal adverse events.

CONCLUSION

CPAP is more effective than HFNC at reducing the risk of meeting the intubation criteria in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

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).

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.

High-flow nasal cannula failure in critically ill cancer patients with acute respiratory failure: Moving from avoiding intubation to avoiding delayed intubation

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used in critically ill cancer patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) to avoid mechanical ventilation (MV). The objective was to assess prognostic factors associated with mortality in ICU cancer patients requiring MV after HFNC failure, and to identify predictive factors of intubation.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study from 2012–2016 in a cancer referral center. All consecutive onco-hematology adult patients admitted to the ICU treated with HFNC were included. HFNC failure was defined by intubation requirement.

Results

202 patients were included, 104 successfully treated with HFNC and 98 requiring intubation. ICU and hospital mortality rates were 26.2% (n = 53) and 42.1% (n = 85) respectively, and 53.1% (n = 52) and 68.4% (n = 67) in patients requiring MV. Multivariate analysis identified 4 prognostic factors of hospital mortality after HFNC failure: complete/partial remission (OR = 0.2, 95%CI = 0.04–0.98, p<0.001) compared to patients with refractory/relapse disease (OR = 3.73, 95%CI = 1.08–12.86), intubation after day 3 (OR = 7.78, 95%CI = 1.44–41.96), number of pulmonary quadrants involved on chest X-ray (OR = 1.93, 95%CI = 1.14–3.26, p = 0.01) and SAPSII at ICU admission (OR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1–1.12, p = 0.019). Predictive factors of intubation were the absence of sepsis (sHR = 0.32, 95%CI = 0.12–0.74, p = 0.0087), Sp02<95% 15 minutes after HFNC initiation (sHR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.32–3.18, p = 0.0014), number of quadrants on X-ray (sHR = 1.73, 95%CI = 1.46–2.06, p<0.001), Fi02>60% at HFNC initiation (sHR = 3.12, 95%CI = 2.06–4.74, p<0.001) and SAPSII at ICU admission (sHR = 1.03, 95%CI = 1.02–1.05, p<0.01).

Conclusion

Duration of HFNC may be predictive of an excess mortality in ARF cancer patients. Early warning scores to predict HFNC failure are needed to identify patients who would benefit from early intubation.

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.

High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory failure in adult patients

The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been recently used in several clinical settings for oxygenation in adults. In particular, the advantages of HFNC compared with low-flow oxygen systems or non-invasive ventilation include enhanced comfort, increased humidification of secretions to facilitate expectoration, washout of nasopharyngeal dead space to improve the efficiency of ventilation, provision of a small positive end-inspiratory pressure effect, and fixed and rapid delivery of an accurate fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) by minimizing the entrainment of room air. HFNC has been successfully used in critically ill patients with several conditions, such as hypoxemic respiratory failure, hypercapneic respiratory failure (exacerbation of chronic obstructive lung disease), post-extubation respiratory failure, pre-intubation oxygenation, and others. However, the indications are not absolute, and much of the proven benefit remains subjective and physiologic. This review discusses the practical application and clinical uses of HFNC in adults, including its unique respiratory physiologic effects, device settings, and clinical indications.

Treatment of acute respiratory failure: high-flow nasal cannula

Background: High-flow nasal cannulas (HFNCs) have recently been used for several conditions, such as hypoxemic respiratory failure, hypercapnic respiratory failure, post-extubation respiratory failure, and preintubation oxygenation, in critically ill patients.Current Concepts: The advantages of HFNC compared with those of low-flow oxygen systems or noninvasive ventilation include enhanced comfort, increased humidification of secretions to facilitate expectoration, washout of the nasopharyngeal dead space to improve ventilation efficiency, provisioning for low positive end-inspiratory pressure effect, and fixed and rapid delivery of accurate fraction of inspired oxygen by minimizing the entrainment of room air. However, the indications are not absolute, with much of the proven benefit being subjective and physiologic.Discussion and Conclusion: The goal of this review is to discuss the practical application and clinical uses of HFNCs in patients with acute respiratory failure, highlighting its unique respiratory and physiologic effects, device settings, and clinical indications.

High Flow Nasal Cannula as Support in Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Study

Introduction:

High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) is a novel technique for respiratory support that improves oxygenation. In some patients, it may reduce the work of breathing. In immunocompromised patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF), Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) is the main support recommended strategy, since invasive mechanical ventilation could increase mortality rates. NIV used for more than 48 hours may be associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Therefore HFNC seems like a respiratory support alternative.

Objective:

To describe clinical outcomes of immunocompromised patients with ARF HFNC-supported.

Methods:

Retrospective study in patients admitted with ARF and HFNC-supported. 25 adult patients were included, 21 pharmacologically and 4 non- pharmacologically immunosuppressed. Median age of the patients was 64 [60-76] years, APACHE II 15 [11-19], and PaO2:FiO2 218 [165-248]. Demographic information, origin of immunosuppression, Respiratory Rate (RR), Heart Rate (HR), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and PaO2:FiO2 ratio were extracted from clinical records of our HFNC local protocol. Data acquisition was performed before and after the first 24 hours of connection. In addition, the need for greater ventilatory support after HFNC, orotracheal intubation, in-hospital mortality and 90 days out-patients’ mortality was recorded.

Results:

Mean RR before the connection was 25±22 breaths/min and 22±4 breaths/min after the first 24 hours of HFNC use (95% CI; p=0.02). HR mean before connection to HFNC was 96±22 beats/min, and after, it was 86±15 beats/min (95%CI; p=0.008). Previous mean MAP was 86±15 mmHg, and after HFNC, it was 80±12 mmHg (95%CI; p=0.09); mean SpO2 after was 93±5% and before it was 95±4% (95% CI; p=0.13); and previous PaO2:FiO2 mean was 219±66, and after it was 324±110 (95%CI; p=0.52). In-hospital mortality was 28% and 90 days out-patients’ mortality was 32%.

Conclusion:

HFNC in immunosuppressed ARF subjects significantly decreases HR and RR, being apparently an effective alternative to decrease work of breathing. In-hospital mortality in ARF immunosuppressed patients was high even though respiratory support was used. Better studies are needed to define the role of HFNC-support in ARF.

Design and engineering application of medical oxygen supply system in novel coronavirus pneumonia treatment hospital

Respiratory supporting, as an important medical treatment for new coronavirus pneumonia patients, must be effectively guaranteed by medical oxygen supply. However, the medical oxygen system designed and configured by the existing hospitals according to the current specifications cannot meet the oxygen needs for patients with new coronavirus pneumonia. This paper aimed to study the design of medical oxygen system in new coronavirus pneumonia emergency hospital. By investigating the oxygen treatment plan for the novel coronavirus pneumonia patients in the health emergency hospital, the oxygen treatment characteristics of different patients were studied. The oxygen characteristics of different respiratory support terminals were explored to study the oxygen demands of new coronavirus pneumonia emergency hospitals. Through calculating flow rates of medical gas system air source referring to ‘technical code for medical gases engineering’, the proportion coefficient of severe patients converted into respiratory distress patients was introduced, and the model of calculating flow rates of medical oxygen system air source in emergency hospital was proposed. The cases were verified in a typical health emergency hospital that the developed calculation flow model of medical oxygen source met the demands of hospital oxygen. The outcomes provide a reference for the design and construction of medical oxygen in such health emergency hospitals.

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.

High flow nasal cannula for adult acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED setting: A narrative review

Introduction

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a noninvasive ventilation (NIV) system that has demonstrated promise in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Objective

This narrative review evaluates the utility of HFNC in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED setting.

Discussion

HFNC provides warm (37 °C), humidified (100% relative humidity) oxygen at high flows with a reliable fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂). HFNC can improve oxygenation, reduce airway resistance, provide humidified flow that can flush anatomical dead space, and provide a low amount of positive end expiratory pressure. Recent literature has demonstrated efficacy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), interstitial lung disease, immunocompromised states, the peri-intubation state, and palliative care, with reduced need for intubation, length of stay, and mortality in some of these conditions. Individual patient factors play an important role in infection control risks with respect to the use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate personal protective equipment, adherence to hand hygiene, surgical mask placement over the HFNC device, and environmental controls promoting adequate room ventilation are the foundation for protecting healthcare personnel. Frequent reassessment of the patient placed on HFNC is necessary; those with severe end organ dysfunction, thoracoabdominal asynchrony, significantly increased respiratory rate, poor oxygenation despite HFNC, and tachycardia are at increased risk of HFNC failure and need for further intervention.

Conclusions

HFNC demonstrates promise in several conditions requiring respiratory support. Further randomized trials are needed in the ED setting.

The effect of high flow nasal oxygen therapy in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy has been widely used in intensive care units (ICU); however, its efficacy remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of HFNO therapy with th at of alternative noninvasive oxygen therapies such as conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in ICU.

METHODS

A Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library database search was performed in March 2020. Results: The meta-analysis ultimately included 17 clinical studies. Compared with the overall effect of COT and NIV, HFNO was associated with a low incidence of pneumonia (95% CI: 0.6-0.99, P = 0.04) and improvement in lowest pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) during oxygenation (95% CI: 0.02-1.61; P = 0.04). However, no differences were detected in the following outcomes: length of ICU stay, the rate of intubation or reintubation, mortality at day 28, hospital mortality, and SpO₂ at the end of oxygen therapy (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients in ICU, HFNO may improve oxygenation and decrease pneumonia rate without affecting the length of ICU stay, intubation or reintubation rate, mortality, and SpO₂ at the end of oxygen therapy.

Pulse oximetric saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FIO2) ratio 24 hours after high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) initiation is a good predictor of HFNC therapy in patients with acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy provides effective respiratory management in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, the efficacy and tolerability of HFNC for patients with acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (AE-ILD) have not been established. This study was performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of HFNC for patients with AE-ILD and identify the early predictors of the outcome of HFNC treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients with AE-ILD who underwent HFNC. Overall survival, the success rate of HFNC treatment, adverse events, temporary interruption of treatment, discontinuation of treatment at the patient's request, and predictors of the outcome of HFNC treatment were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients were analyzed. Of these, 26 patients (39.4%) showed improved oxygenation and were successfully withdrawn from HFNC. The 30-day survival rate was 48.5%. No discontinuations at the patient's request were observed, and no serious adverse events occurred. The pulse oximetric saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO₂/FIO₂) ratio 24 h after initiating HFNC showed high prediction accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.802) for successful HFNC treatment. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, an SpO₂/FIO₂ ratio of at least 170.9 at 24 h after initiation was significantly associated with successful HFNC treatment (odds ratio, 51.3; 95% confidence interval, 6.13-430; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC was well tolerated in patients with AE-ILD, suggesting that HFNC is a reasonable respiratory management for these patients. The SpO₂/FIO₂ ratio 24 h after initiating HFNC was a good predictor of successful HFNC treatment. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

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.

Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate orders: a multicentre prospective study OXYPAL

INTRODUCTION

A palliative approach to intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate order corresponds to a poorly evaluated target for non-invasive oxygenation treatments. Survival alone should not be the only target; it also matters to avoid discomfort and to restore the patient's quality of life. We aim to conduct a prospective multicentre observational study to analyse clinical practices and their impact on outcomes of palliative high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in ICU patients with do-not-intubate orders.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an investigator-initiated, multicentre prospective observational cohort study comparing the three following strategies of oxygenation: HFOT alone, NIV alternating with HFOT and NIV alternating with standard oxygen in patients admitted in the ICU for acute respiratory failure with a do-not-intubate order. The primary outcome is the hospital survival within 14 days after ICU admission in patients weaned from NIV and HFOT. The sample size was estimated at a minimum of 330 patients divided into three groups according to the oxygenation strategy applied. The analysis takes into account confounding factors by modelling a propensity score.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03673631.

Nasal high flow higher than 60 L/min in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a physiological study

Background

Nasal high flow delivered at flow rates higher than 60 L/min in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure might be associated with improved physiological effects. However, poor comfort might limit feasibility of its clinical use.

Methods

We performed a prospective randomized cross-over physiological study on 12 ICU patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Patients underwent three steps at the following gas flow: 0.5 L/kg PBW/min, 1 L/kg PBW/min, and 1.5 L/kg PBW/min in random order for 20 min. Temperature and FiO₂ remained unchanged. Toward the end of each phase, we collected arterial blood gases, lung volumes, and regional distribution of ventilation assessed by electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and comfort.

Results

In five patients, the etiology was pulmonary; infective disease characterized seven patients; median PaO₂/FiO₂ at enrollment was 213 [IQR 136–232]. The range of flow rate during NHF 1.5 was 75–120 L/min. PaO₂/FiO₂ increased with flow, albeit non significantly (p = 0.064), PaCO₂ and arterial pH remained stable (p = 0.108 and p = 0.105). Respiratory rate decreased at higher flow rates (p = 0.014). Inhomogeneity of ventilation decreased significantly at higher flows (p = 0.004) and lung volume at end-expiration significantly increased (p = 0.007), but mostly in the non-dependent regions. Comfort was significantly poorer during the step performed at the highest flow (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

NHF delivered at rates higher than 60 L/min in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is associated with reduced respiratory rate, increased lung homogeneity, and additional positive pressure effect, but also with worse comfort.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

DESIGN

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.

PATIENTS

Forty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Mean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.

Use of nasal high flow oxygen during acute respiratory failure

Nasal high flow (NHF) has gained popularity among intensivists to manage patients with acute respiratory failure. An important literature has accompanied this evolution. In this review, an international panel of experts assessed potential benefits of NHF in different areas of acute respiratory failure management. Analyses of the physiological effects of NHF indicate flow-dependent improvement in various respiratory function parameters. These beneficial effects allow some patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure to avoid intubation and improve their outcome. They require close monitoring to not delay intubation. Such a delay may worsen outcome. The ROX index may help clinicians decide when to intubate. In immunocompromised patients, NHF reduces the need for intubation but does not impact mortality. Beneficial physiological effects of NHF have also been reported in patients with chronic respiratory failure, suggesting a possible indication in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. When intubation is required, NHF can be used to pre-oxygenate patients either alone or in combination with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Similarly, NHF reduces reintubation alone in low-risk patients and in combination with NIV in high-risk patients. NHF may be used in the emergency department in patients who would not be offered intubation and can be better tolerated than NIV.

Early prediction of high flow nasal cannula therapy outcomes using a modified ROX index incorporating heart rate

Background

The ROX index (ratio of pulse oximetry/FIO₂ to respiratory rate) has been validated to predict high flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) outcomes in patients with pneumonia. We evaluated a modified ROX index incorporating heart rate (HR) in patients initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and as a preventative treatment following planned extubation.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational cohort study of 145 patients treated with HFNC. ROX-HR index was defined as the ratio of ROX index over HR (beats/min), multiplied by a factor of 100. Evaluation was performed using area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and cutoffs assessed for prediction of HFNC failure: defined as the need for mechanical ventilation.

Results

Ninety-nine (68.3%) and 46 (31.7%) patients were initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and following a planned extubation, respectively. The majority (86.9%) of patients had pneumonia as a primary diagnosis, and 85 (56.6%) patients were immunocompromised. Sixty-one (42.1%) patients required intubation (HFNC failure). Amongst patients on HFNC for acute respiratory failure, HFNC failure was associated with a lower ROX and ROX-HR index recorded at time points between 1 and 48 h. Within the first 12 h, both indices performed with the highest AUROC at 10 h as follows: 0.723 (95% CI 0.605–0.840) and 0.739 (95% CI 0.626–0.853) for the ROX and ROX-HR index respectively. A ROX-HR index of > 6.80 was significantly associated with a lower risk of HFNC failure (hazard ratio 0.301 (95% CI 0.143–0.663)) at 10 h. This association was also observed at 2, 6, 18, and 24h, even with correction for potential confounding factors. For HFNC initiated post-extubation, only the ROX-HR index remained significantly associated with HFNC failure at all recorded time points between 1 and 24 h. A ROX-HR > 8.00 at 10 h was significantly associated with a lower risk of HFNC failure (hazard ratio 0.176 (95% CI 0.051–0.604)).

Conclusion

While validation studies are required, the ROX-HR index appears to be a promising tool for early identification of treatment failure in patients initiated on HFNC for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or as a preventative treatment after a planned extubation.

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.

Noninvasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with acute respiratory failure: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is one of the leading causes of intensive care unit admission and is associated with high mortality. Noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as high-flow nasal cannula, standard oxygen therapy, and noninvasive ventilation (delivered by either face mask or helmet interface) are widely available interventions applied in these patients. It remains unclear which of these interventions are more effective in decreasing rates of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. The primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to summarize the evidence and compare the effect of noninvasive oxygenation strategies on mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

We will search key databases for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of noninvasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We will exclude studies in which the primary focus is either acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality (longest available up to 90 days). The secondary outcomes will be receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (longest available up to 30 days). We will assess the risk of bias for each of the outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to obtain pooled estimates of head-to-head comparisons. We will report pairwise and network meta-analysis treatment effect estimates as risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analyses will be conducted examining key populations including immunocompromised hosts. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted by excluding those studies with high risk of bias and different etiologies of acute respiratory failure. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using GRADE methodology.

DISCUSSION

This study will help to guide clinical decision-making when caring for adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and improve our understanding of the limitations of the available literature assessing noninvasive oxygenation strategies in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121755.

Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Immunocompromise and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause of emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is widely used for patients with ARF.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the latest evidence regarding the application of HFNC in immunocompromised patients with ARF.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to January 2019. The primary outcome was short-term mortality and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of ICU stay.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 2,179 immunocompromised subjects with ARF were included. No significant differences for short-term mortality were observed when comparing HFNC with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 1.09; p = 0.25, I² = 47%) and with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.18; p = 0.16, I² = 58%). Lower intubation rates were found when comparing HFNC with COT (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.03, I² = 0%) and no significant difference was found between HFNC and NIV (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.19; p = 0.22, I² = 67%). The length of ICU stay was similar when comparing HFNC with COT (mean difference [MD] 0.59; 95% CI -1.68 to 2.85; p = 0.61, I² = 56%), but was significantly shorter when HFNC was compared with NIV (MD -2.13; 95% CI -3.98 to -0.29; p = 0.02, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with use of HFNC when compared with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF. A lower intubation rate than COT and a shorter length of ICU stay than NIV were observed in the HFNC group.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure and Do-Not-Intubate or Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do-not-intubate (DNI) and/or do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018.

RESULTS

We included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified.

CONCLUSIONS

While HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high-quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

Noninvasive Oxygen Therapies in Oncologic Patients

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) is the most common cause of critical illness in oncologic patients. Despite significant advancements in survival of oncologic patients who develop critical illness, mortality rates in those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation have improved but remain high. Avoiding intubation is paramount to the management of oncologic patients with ARF. There are important differences between the oncologic patient with ARF compared to the general ICU population that likely underlie the increased mortality once intubated. Noninvasive oxygen modalities have been recognized as an important therapeutic approach to prevent intubation. Continuous low-flow oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation, and high-flow nasal cannula are the most commonly used noninvasive oxygen therapies in recent years. They have unique physiologic properties. The data surrounding their efficacy in the general ICU population and oncologic population has evolved over time reflecting the changes in the oncologic population. This chapter reviews the three different noninvasive oxygen modalities, their physiologic impact, and evidence surrounding their effectiveness.

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.

Noninvasive ventilation as acute therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is widely used in ICU patients to treat or to prevent acute respiratory failure. Whereas its physiological effects are clearly beneficial in hypercapnic patients, it could be deleterious in hypoxemic patients without hypercapnia.

RECENT FINDINGS

NIV should be cautiously used in patients with de-novo respiratory failure, the vast majority of whom meet the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Spontaneous breathing with high tidal volumes may worsen lung injury in these patients, and recent findings suggest that NIV may increase the risk of mortality. Even though high-flow oxygen therapy is increasingly applied in this context, NIV remains recommended for management of immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure. NIV should be the first-line oxygenation strategy in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure when pH is equal to or below 7.35. Prophylactic NIV prevents respiratory failure after extubation of patients at high risk of reintubation.

SUMMARY

Most previous studies have compared NIV with standard oxygen, and recent recommendations have been established from these findings. Given the growing use of high-flow oxygen therapy, new studies are needed to compare NIV versus high-flow oxygen therapy so as to better define the appropriate indications for each treatment.

Reduction of PaCO2 by high-flow nasal cannula in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy

Background:

It has been suggested that a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could help to remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from anatomical dead spaces, but evidence to support that is lacking. The objective of this study was to elucidate whether use of an HFNC could reduce the arterial partial pressure of CO₂ (PaCO₂) in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure who are receiving conventional oxygen (O₂) therapy.

Methods:

A propensity score-matched observational study was conducted to evaluate patients treated with an HFNC for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure from 2015 to 2016. The hypercapnia group was defined as patients with a PaCO₂ >50 mm Hg and arterial pH <7.35.

Results:

Eighteen patients in the hypercapnia group and 177 patients in the nonhypercapnia group were eligible for the present study. Eighteen patients in each group were matched by propensity score. Decreased PaCO₂ and consequent pH normalization over time occurred in the hypercapnia group (P=0.002 and P=0.005, respectively). The initial PaCO₂ level correlated linearly with PaCO₂ removal after the use of an HFNC (R²=0.378, P=0.010). The fraction of inspired O₂ used in the intensive care unit was consistently higher for 48 hours in the nonhypercapnia group. Physiological parameters such as respiratory rate and arterial partial pressure of O₂ improved over time in both groups.

Conclusions:

Physiological parameters can improve after the use of an HFNC in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure given low-flow O₂ therapy via a facial mask. Further studies are needed to identify which hypercapnic patients might benefit from an HFNC.

Is immunosuppression status a risk factor for noninvasive ventilation failure in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure? A post hoc matched analysis

Background

Recent European/American guidelines recommend noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as a first-line therapy to manage acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients. By contrast, NIV may have deleterious effects in nonimmunocompromised patients and experts have been unable to offer a recommendation. Immunocompromised patients have particularly high mortality rates when they require intubation. However, it is not clear whether immunosuppression status is a risk factor for NIV failure. We assessed the impact of immunosuppression status on NIV failure in a post hoc analysis pooling two studies including patients with de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NIV. Patients with hypercapnia, acute exacerbation of chronic lung disease, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, or with do-not-intubate order were excluded.

Results

Among the 208 patients included in the analysis, 71 (34%) were immunocompromised. They had higher severity scores upon ICU admission, higher pressure-support levels, and minute ventilation under NIV, and were more likely to have bilateral lung infiltrates than nonimmunocompromised patients. Intubation and in-ICU mortality rates were higher in immunocompromised than in nonimmunocompromised patients: 61% vs. 43% (p = 0.02) and 38% vs. 15% (p < 0.001), respectively. After adjustment or using a propensity score-matched analysis, immunosuppression was not associated with intubation, whereas it remained independently associated with ICU mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.64 (95% CI 1.24–5.67, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Immunosuppression status may directly influence mortality but does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of intubation in patients with de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NIV. Studies in this specific population are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-019-0566-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy alone or with non-invasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients admitted to ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: the randomised multicentre controlled FLORALI-IM protocol

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended as first-line therapy in respiratory failure of critically ill immunocompromised patients as it can decrease intubation and mortality rates as compared with standard oxygen. However, its recommendation is only conditional. Indeed, the use of NIV in this setting has been challenged recently based on results of trials finding similar outcomes with or without NIV or even deleterious effects of NIV. To date, NIV has been compared with standard oxygen but not to high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) in immunocompromised patients. Several studies have found lower mortality rates using HFOT alone than when using HFOT with NIV sessions in patients with de novo respiratory failure, and even in immunocompromised patients. We are hypothesising that HFOT alone is more effective than HFOT with NIV sessions and reduces mortality of immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFOT alone or with NIV in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Around 280 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The primary outcome is the mortality rate at day 28 after inclusion. Secondary outcomes include the rate of intubation in each group, length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality up to day 180.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02978300.

The role of a critical care outreach service in the management of patients with haematological malignancy

Introduction

Although improvement in survival from haematological malignancies has been reported, a substantial number of these patients develop life threatening complications. Critical care outreach services (CCOS) aim to avert inappropriate ICU admissions, while ensuring timely patient review.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed patients with haematological malignancy reviewed by an outreach service between January 2014 and December 2015 at a single institution. The aim of our study was to describe the patient population assessed by a well-established outreach team, identify predictors of ICU admission, as well as ICU and hospital mortality.

Results

Sixty of 126 patients reviewed (47.6%) were admitted to ICU. ICU and hospital mortality were 25.3% and 45.2%, respectively. The odds of being admitted to ICU was 13 times higher (p = 0.013) if the patient was referred for hypoxia, 20 times higher (p = 0.006) if they were referred for sepsis or 14 times higher (p = 0.027) if they were referred to CCOS for hypotension, compared to when the team was automatically alerted. The odds of not surviving hospital admission increased 1.27 times for every extra day of CCOS review (p = 0.02). When a patient was referred having a refractory or progressive haematological condition, the odds of not surviving to hospital discharge increased by four or 12 times, respectively, compared to when the referred patient was in remission. Receiving high flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNCO) was associated with a reduction in ICU admission (p = 0.03), irrespective of the underlying diagnosis, performance status or location of delivery. The CCOS participated in end-of-life discussions in 29% patients.

Conclusions

ICU and hospital mortality of patients with haemato-oncological malignancy continue to improve. CCOS are heavily involved in the recognition and management of these patients, as well as in the facilitation of end-of-life discussions. Sepsis was associated with increased risk of ICU admission and mortality. Initiation of HFNCO outside ICU appears to be feasible and safe and was not associated with increasing risk in this single centre study.

Nasal high flow: physiology, efficacy and safety in the acute care setting, a narrative review

Nasal high flow (NHF) is a promising novel oxygen delivery device, whose mechanisms of action offer some beneficial effects over conventional oxygen systems. It is considered to have a number of physiological effects: it improves oxygenation, dynamic lung compliance, homogeneity and end expiratory lung volume; it decreases anatomical dead space and generates a positive airway pressure that can reduce respiratory rate, the work of breathing, and enhance patient comfort. NHF has been used as a prophylactic tool or as a treatment device mostly in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure such as pre-oxygenation before intubation, immunocompromised patients and acute heart failure. Moreover, there is some evidence that NHF could be used during procedural sedation. Finally, NHF was deemed to be effective in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with its positive end expiratory pressure effects and dead-space washout. However, careful monitoring is crucial to maximize NHF settings aimed at maximizing patient comfort while limiting the risk of delayed intubation. The present review presents the most updated evidence for NHF use in the adult acute care setting with the goal of providing clinicians with useful insights on the physiologic effects, main clinical indications, and safety issues of NHF treatment.

Acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised adults

Acute respiratory failure occurs in up to half of patients with haematological malignancies and 15% of those with solid tumours or solid organ transplantation. Mortality remains high. Factors associated with mortality include a need for invasive mechanical ventilation, organ dysfunction, older age, frailty or poor performance status, delayed intensive care unit admission, and acute respiratory failure due to an invasive fungal infection or unknown cause. In addition to appropriate antibacterial therapy, initial clinical management aims to restore oxygenation and predict the most probable cause based on variables related to the underlying disease, acute respiratory failure characteristics, and radiographic findings. The cause of acute respiratory failure must then be confirmed using the most efficient, least invasive, and safest diagnostic tests. In patients with acute respiratory failure of undetermined cause, a standardised diagnostic investigation should be done immediately at admission before deciding whether to perform more invasive diagnostic procedures or to start empirical treatments. Collaborative and multidisciplinary clinical and research networks are crucial to improve our understanding of disease pathogenesis and causation and to develop less invasive diagnostic strategies and more targeted treatment options.

High flow nasal therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) as compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to address this issue.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline and Embase until November 7th, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized prospective and retrospective evidence were selected. Observational studies were considered for sensitivity analysis. Primary outcome was mortality rate; intubation rate was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

We included four studies in the primary analysis: one RCT, two RCT's post-hoc analyses and one retrospective study. We found no significant difference in short-term mortality comparing HFNT vs. COT: 1) ICU: n = 872 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.80 [0.44,1.45], p = 0.46, I² = 30%, p = 0.24; 2) 28-day: n = 996 patients, OR = 0.79 [0.45,1.38], p = 0.40, I² = 52%, p = 0.12). Conversely, we found a reduction of intubation rate in the HFNT group (n = 1052 patients, OR = 0.74 [0.55,0.98], p = 0.03, I² = 7%, p = 0.36). The inclusion of one observational study for sensitivity analysis did not grossly change results.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no benefit of HFNT over COT on mortality in immunocompromised patients with ARF. However, HFNT was associated with a lower intubation rate warranting further research.

Improved oxygenation 48 hours after high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is associated with good outcome in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure

Background

Respiratory failure requiring intubation is a risk factor for mortality in immunocompromised patients, therefore, noninvasive methods to avoid intubation are preferred in such patients. A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an alternative noninvasive technique for oxygen delivery but can be potentially harmful in cases of delayed intubation. We sought to identify the physiological predictors of outcome to assess the responsiveness to HFNC of immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of immunocompromised patients treated with HFNC in 2015 and 2016 in a tertiary hospital. Oxygenation was assessed by calculating the SpO₂/FiO₂ (SF) ratio. Subjects were defined as "SF-improved" when HFNC resulted in an increase in the SF ratio compared with baseline. The values were collected at baseline, 12, 24, and 48 h.

Results

Ninety-one patients with a median age of 64 years were analyzed; 68.1% were men. There was no significant difference between the SF₄₈-improved and the SF₄₈-nonimproved groups in clinical baseline characteristics or severity of illness as evaluated at the time of initiation of HFNC by APACHE II, SAPS II, and SOFA. The 28-day mortality was significantly lower in the SF₄₈-improved compared with the SF₄₈-nonimproved group. In univariate analysis, mortality was significantly associated with body mass index (BMI), poor functional status, do-not-intubate (DNI) status, the "SF₄₈-improved" group, the reason for immunocompromise, and the severity of illness at the time of initiation of HFNC. In multivariate analysis, "SF₄₈-improved" group was not significantly associated with increased mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.462; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.107-1.988; P=0.299].

Conclusions

In immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, an improved SF ratio 48 h after HFNC treatment was associated with improved 28-day mortality.

Non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy: When to choose one over the other?

It has been found that high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) can reduce mortality of patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for de novo acute respiratory failure (ARF) as compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV). HFOT might therefore be considered as a first-line strategy of oxygenation in these patients. The beneficial effects of HFOT may be explained by its good tolerance and by physiological characteristics including delivery of high FiO₂ , positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) effect and continuous dead space washout contributing to decreased work of breathing. In contrast, NIV should be used cautiously in patients with de novo ARF due to high tidal volumes promoted by pressure support and that may potentially worsen pre-existing lung injury. Although recent studies have reported no benefit and even deleterious effects of NIV in immunocompromised patients with ARF, the experts have recommended its use as a first-line strategy. In patients with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure and respiratory acidosis, it has been clearly shown that NIV is the best strategy of oxygenation. However, HFOT seems able to reverse respiratory acidosis and further studies are needed to evaluate whether HFOT could represent an alternative to standard oxygen. Although NIV is recommended to treat ARF in post-operative patients or to prevent post-extubation respiratory failure in ICU, recent large-scale randomized studies suggest that HFOT could be equivalent to NIV. While recent recommendations have been established from studies comparing NIV with standard oxygen, new studies are needed to compare NIV versus HFOT in order to better define the appropriate indications for both treatments.

Approaches and techniques to avoid development or progression of acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite major improvement in ventilation strategies, hospital mortality and morbidity of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain high. A lot of therapies have been shown to be ineffective for established ARDS. There is a growing interest in strategies aiming at avoiding development and progression of ARDS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent advances in this field have explored identification of patients at high-risk, nonspecific measures to limit the risks of inflammation, infection and fluid overload, prevention strategies of ventilator-induced lung injury and patient self-inflicted lung injury, and pharmacological treatments.

SUMMARY

There is potential for improvement in the management of patients admitted to intensive care unit to reduce ARDS incidence. Apart from nonspecific measures, prevention of ventilator-induced lung injury and patient self-inflicted lung injury are of major importance.

A Systematic Review of the High-flow Nasal Cannula for Adult Patients

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2018. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2018. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

High-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in immunocompromised patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is an alternative to standard oxygen. By providing warmed and humidified gas, HFNO allows the delivery of higher flow rates via nasal cannula devices, with FiO₂ values of nearly 100%. Benefits include alleviation of dyspnea and discomfort, decreased respiratory distress and decreased mortality in unselected patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, in preliminary reports, HFNO benefits are controversial in immunocompromised patients in whom it has never been properly evaluated.

Methods/design

This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial in 30 intensive care units, part of the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique (GRRR-OH). Inclusion criteria will be: (1) adults, (2) known immunosuppression, (3) ARF, (4) oxygen therapy ≥ 6 L/min, (5) written informed consent from patient or proxy. Exclusion criteria will be: (1) imminent death (moribund patient), (2) no informed consent, (3) hypercapnia (PaCO₂ ≥ 50 mmHg), (4) isolated cardiogenic pulmonary edema, (5) pregnancy or breastfeeding, (6) anatomical factors precluding insertion of a nasal cannula, (7) no coverage by the French statutory healthcare insurance system, and (8) post-surgical setting from day 1 to day 6 (patients with ARF occurring after day 6 of surgery can be included).

The primary outcome measure is day-28 mortality. Secondary outcomes are intubation rate, comfort, dyspnea, respiratory rate, oxygenation, ICU length of stay, and ICU-acquired infections.

Based on an expected 30% mortality rate in the standard oxygen group, and 20% in the HFNO group, error rate set at 5%, and a statistical power at 90%, 389 patients are required in each treatment group (778 patients overall). Recruitment period is estimated at 30 months, with 28 days of additional follow-up for the last included patient.

Discussion

The HIGH study will be the largest multicenter, randomized controlled trial seeking to demonstrate that survival benefits from HFNO reported in unselected patients also apply to a large immunocompromised population.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02739451. Registered on 15 April 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2492-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Patients with Malignancy

Patients with cancer continue to have unmet palliative care needs. Concurrent palliative care is tailored to the needs of patients as well as their families to relieve suffering. Specialty palliative care referral is associated with improved symptom management, improved end-of-life quality, and higher family-rated satisfaction. Optimal timing for palliative care referral has not been determined. Barriers to palliative care referral include workforce limitations, provider attitudes and perceptions, and potential ethnic and racial disparities in access to palliative care. Future work should focus on novel, patient-centered approaches to identify and address unmet palliative care needs for patients living with cancer.

High-flow oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Acute respiratory failure remains a common hazardous complication in immunocompromised patients and is associated with increased mortality rates when endotracheal intubation is need. We aimed to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) compared with other oxygen technique for this patient population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed databases before Aug. 15, 2017 for eligible articles. A meta-analysis was performed for measuring short-term mortality (defined as ICU, hospital or 28-days mortality) and intubation rate as the primary outcomes, and length of stay in ICU as the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

We included seven studies involving 667 patients. Use of HFNC was significantly association with a reduction in short-term mortality (RR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.84, p=0.0007) and intubation rate (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90; p=0.002). In addition, HFNC did not significant increase length of stay in ICU (MD 0.15days; 95% CI, -2.08 to 2.39; p=0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of current meta-analysis suggest that use of HFNC significantly improve outcomes of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients. Owing to the quality of the included studies, further adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.

Predictors of high flow nasal cannula failure in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure due to non-HIV pneumocystis pneumonia

Background

To evaluate the predictors of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure in pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Methods

Fifty-two non-HIV-related PCP subjects were divided into a HFNC success group (44%) and a HFNC failure group (who required mechanical ventilation (MV) despite HFNC application) (56%). The clinical characteristics and physiologic effects were retrospectively reviewed and compared between the groups.

Results

At baseline, the heart rate, alveolar-arterial PO₂ difference [P(A-a)O₂], Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, and proportion of subjects who used vasopressors were significantly higher in the HFNC failure group than in the HFNC success group. The 60-day mortality was 52% in the HFNC failure group and 13% in the HFNC success group (P=0.004). The results of the multivariate analysis indicated that the baseline SOFA score was independently associated with HFNC failure (adjusted odds ratio, 1.74 per each score unit increase; 95% CI, 1.05-2.89; P=0.03). Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that within 6 h of HFNC initiation, the mean PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio decreased and the mean P(A-a)O₂ increased rapidly in the HFNC failure group.

Conclusions

Patients with ARF due to PCP subjected to HFNC therapy should be carefully monitored, and particular attention should be paid to those who had organ dysfunction and did not show early oxygenation improvement.

Nasal high flow therapy: a novel treatment rather than a more expensive oxygen device

Nasal high flow is a promising novel oxygen delivery device, whose mechanisms of action offer some beneficial effects over conventional oxygen systems. The administration of a high flow of heated and humidified gas mixture promotes higher and more stable inspiratory oxygen fraction values, decreases anatomical dead space and generates a positive airway pressure that can reduce the work of breathing and enhance patient comfort and tolerance. Nasal high flow has been used as a prophylactic tool or as a treatment device mostly in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, with the majority of studies showing positive results. Recently, its clinical indications have been expanded to post-extubated patients in intensive care or following surgery, for pre- and peri-oxygenation during intubation, during bronchoscopy, in immunocompromised patients and in patients with “do not intubate” status. In the present review, we differentiate studies that suggest an advantage (benefit) from other studies that do not suggest an advantage (no benefit) compared to conventional oxygen devices or noninvasive ventilation, and propose an algorithm in cases of nasal high flow application in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure of almost any cause.

The intensive care medicine research agenda for airways, invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation

In an important sense, support of the respiratory system has been a defining characteristic of intensive care since its inception. The pace of basic and clinical research in this field has escalated over the past two decades, resulting in palpable improvement at the bedside as measured by both efficacy and outcome. As in all medical research, however, novel ideas built upon observations are continually proposed, tested, and either retained or discarded on the basis of the persuasiveness of the evidence. What follows are concise descriptions of the current standards of management practice in respiratory support, the areas of present-day uncertainty, and our suggested agenda for the near future of research aimed at testing current assumptions, probing uncertainties, and solidifying the foundation on which to base our progress to the next level.