Non-invasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Management strategy for hematological malignancy patients with acute respiratory failure

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is still the major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hematological malignancy (HM) patients although the advance in hematology and supportive care has greatly improved the prognosis. Clinicians have to make decisions whether the HM patients with ARF should be sent to ICU and which ventilation support should be administered. Based on the reported investigations related to management of HM patients with ARF, we propose a selection procedure to manage this population and recommend hematological ICU as the optimal setting to recuse these patients, where hematologists and intensivists can collaborate closely and improve the outcomes. Moreover, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) still has its own place for selected HM patients with ARF who have mild hypoxemia and reversible causes. It is also crucial to monitor the efficacy of NIV closely and switch to invasive mechanical ventilation at appropriate timing when NIV shows no apparent improvement. Otherwise, early IMV should be initiated to HM with ARF who have moderate and severe hypoxemia, adult respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction, and unstable hemodynamic. More studies are needed to elucidate the predictors of ICU mortality and ventilatory mode for HM patients with ARF.

Factors associated with non-invasive mechanical ventilation failure in patients with hematological neoplasia and their association with outcomes

BACKGROUND

The usefulness of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in oncohematological patients is still a matter of debate.

AIM

To analyze the rate of noninvasive ventilation failure and the main characteristics associated with this endpoint in oncohematological patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

METHODS

A ventilatory support protocol was developed and implemented before the onset of the study. According to the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio and clinical judgment, patients received supplementary oxygen therapy, NIMV, or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included, average age between 52.1 ± 16 years old; 44 (53.6%) were male. The tested protocol was followed in 95.1% of cases. Six patients (7.3%) received IMV, 59 (89.7%) received NIMV, and 17 (20.7%) received oxygen therapy. ICU mortality rates were significantly higher in the IMV (83.3%) than in the NIMV (49.2%) and oxygen therapy (5.9%) groups (P < 0.001). Among the 59 patients who initially received NIMV, 30 (50.8%) had to eventually be intubated. Higher SOFA score at baseline (1.35 [95% CI = 1.12-2.10], P = 0.007), higher respiratory rate (RR) (1.10 [95% CI = 1.00-1.22], P = 0.048), and sepsis on admission (16.9 [95% CI = 1.93-149.26], P = 0.011) were independently associated with the need of orotracheal intubation among patients initially treated with NIMV. Moreover, NIMV failure was independently associated with ICU (P < 0.001) and hospital mortality (P = 0.049), and mortality between 6 months and 1 year (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a NIMV protocol is feasible in patients with hematological neoplasia admitted to the ICU, even though its benefits still remain to be demonstrated. NIMV failure was associated with higher SOFA and RR and more frequent sepsis, and it was also related to poor prognosis.

Prophylactic Noninvasive Ventilation Versus Conventional Care in Patients After Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Cardiac surgery can be accompanied by postoperative complications, which are associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the effect of prophylactic noninvasive ventilation (NIV) after extubation versus conventional pulmonary care on complications after cardiac surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and EMBASE was conducted to find randomized controlled trials which compared the effect of prophylactic NIV with controlled strategies on complications and which were published before April 2018.

RESULTS

Ten studies (1011 patients) were included in the final analysis. The atelectasis rate was 32.6% in the prophylactic-NIV group, which was lower than that in the control group (48.71%). Prophylactic NIV could lower the rate of atelectasis, reintubation, and other respiratory complications (pleural effusion, pneumonia, and hypoxia) (odds ratio = 0.43, 0.33, and 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.88, 0. 13-0.84, 0.27-0.75; P = 0.02, 0.02, and 0.002, respectively). The effect on cardiac and distal organ complications (P = 0.07) and hospital mortality (P = 0.62) might be limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic NIV is associated with a lower rate of postoperative pulmonary complications. The effect on the other complications and hospital mortality might be limited. Further evidence with randomized controlled trials can discern the benefits.

Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: the importance of ventilator settings

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is commonly used to prevent endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who fail an NIV trial carry a worse prognosis as compared to those who succeed. Additional factors are also knowingly associated with worse outcomes: higher values of ICU severity score, presence of severe sepsis, and lower ratio of arterial oxygen tension to fraction of inspired oxygen. However, it is still unclear whether NIV failure is responsible for the worse prognosis or if it is merely a marker of the underlying disease severity. There is therefore an ongoing debate as to whether and which ARDS patients are good candidates to an NIV trial. In a recent paper published in JAMA, "Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation Delivered by Helmet vs. Face Mask on the Rate of Endotracheal Intubation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial", Patel et al. evaluated ARDS patients submitted to NIV and drew attention to the importance of the NIV interface. We discussed their interesting findings focusing also on the ventilator settings and on the current barriers to lung protective ventilation in ARDS patients during NIV.