High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: an observational cohort study

Predictive value of diaphragm ultrasound for mechanical ventilation outcome in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is often combined with respiratory failure, which increases the patient's morbidity and mortality. Diaphragm ultrasound (DUS) has developed rapidly in the field of critical care in recent years. Studies with DUS monitoring diaphragm-related rapid shallow breathing index have demonstrated important results in guiding intensive care unit patients out of the ventilator. Early prediction of the indications for withdrawal of non-invasive ventilator and early evaluation of patients to avoid or reduce disease progression are very important.

AIM

To explore the predictive value of DUS indexes for non-invasive ventilation outcome in patients with AECOPD.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients with AECOPD who received mechanical ventilation in our hospital from January 2022 to December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed, and they were divided into a successful ventilation group (68 cases) and a failed ventilation group (26 cases) according to the outcome of ventilation. The clinical data of patients with successful and failed noninvasive ventilation were compared, and the independent predictors of noninvasive ventilation outcomes in AECOPD patients were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in gender, age, body mass index, complications, systolic pressure, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, partial pressure of oxygen, oxygenation index, or time of inspiration between patients with successful and failed mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). The patients with successful noninvasive ventilation had shorter hospital stays and lower partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) than those with failed treatment, while potential of hydrogen (pH), diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF), diaphragm activity, and diaphragm movement time were significantly higher than those with failed treatment (P < 0.05). pH [odds ratio (OR) = 0.005, P < 0.05], PaCO₂ (OR = 0.430, P < 0.05), and DTF (OR = 0.570, P < 0.05) were identified to be independent factors influencing the outcome of mechanical ventilation in AECOPD patients.

CONCLUSION

The DUS index DTF can better predict the outcome of non-invasive ventilation in AECOPD patients.

High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Although cumulative studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, randomized trials to compare HFNC with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as initial treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure are limited. The aim of this randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial was to compare treatment failure rates between HFNC and NIV in such patients.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with AECOPD with a baseline arterial blood gas pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg admitted to two intensive care units (ICUs) at a large tertiary academic teaching hospital between March 2018 and December 2022 were randomly assigned to HFNC or NIV. The primary endpoint was the rate of treatment failure, defined as endotracheal intubation or a switch to the other study treatment modality. Secondary endpoints were rates of intubation or treatment change, blood gas values, vital signs at one, 12, and 48 h, 28-day mortality, as well as ICU and hospital lengths of stay.

RESULTS

225 total patients (113 in the HFNC group and 112 in the NIV group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The failure rate of the HFNC group was 25.7%, while the NIV group was 14.3%. The failure rate risk difference between the two groups was 11.38% (95% CI 0.25-21.20, P = 0.033), which was higher than the non-inferiority cut-off of 9%. In the per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in 28 of 110 patients (25.5%) in the HFNC group and 15 of 109 patients (13.8%) in the NIV group (risk difference, 11.69%; 95% CI 0.48-22.60). The intubation rate in the HFNC group was higher than in the NIV group (14.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.026). The treatment switch rate, ICU and hospital length of stay or 28-day mortality in the HFNC group were not statistically different from the NIV group (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HFNC was not shown to be non-inferior to NIV and resulted in a higher incidence of treatment failure than NIV when used as the initial respiratory support for AECOPD patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

chictr.org (ChiCTR1800014553). Registered 21 January 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for mild-moderate acute respiratory failure in patients with blunt chest trauma: An exploratory descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining popularity for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of HFNC for hypoxemic ARF in patients with blunt chest trauma (BCT).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis focused on BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF who were treated with either HFNC or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency medicine department from January 2021 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either invasive ventilation, or a switch to the other study treatment (NIV for patients in the NFNC group, and vice-versa).

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients with BCT (72 in the HFNC group and 85 in the NIV group) were included in this study. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 11.1% and 16.5% in the NIV group - risk difference of 5.36% (95% CI, -5.94-16.10%; P = 0.366). The most common cause of failure in the HFNC group was aggravation of respiratory distress. While in the NIV group, the most common reason for failure was treatment intolerance. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (1.4% vs 9.4%, 95% CI 0.40-16.18; P = 0.039). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that chronic respiratory disease, abbreviated injury scale score (chest) (≥3), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (≥15), partial arterial oxygen tension /fraction of inspired oxygen (≤200) at 1 h of treatment and respiratory rate (≥32 /min) at 1 h of treatment were risk factors associated with HFNC failure.

CONCLUSION

In BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF, the usage of HFNC did not lead to higher rate of treatment failure when compared to NIV. HFNC was found to offer better comfort and tolerance than NIV, suggesting it may be a promising new respiratory support therapy for BCT patients with mild-moderate ARF.

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

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

[High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and hypercapnic acute respiratory failure]

Humidified high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) has, in recent years, come to assume a key role in the management of hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) currently represents the first-line ventilatory strategy in patients exhibiting hypercapnic ARF, the operating principles and physiological effects of HFNO could be interesting and useful in the initial management of hypercapnic ARF and/or after extubation, particularly in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Under these conditions, HFNO could be used either alone continuously or in combination with NIV during breaks in spontaneous breathing, depending on the severity and etiology of the underlying hypercapnic ARF.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is equally effective to noninvasive ventilation for mild-moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with acute pancreatitis: A single-center, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining popularity for the treatment of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of HFNC for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis focused on AP patients with mild-moderate ARDS, who were treated with either HFNC or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency medicine department, from January 2020 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either invasive ventilation or a switch to any other study treatment (NIV for patients in the NFNC group and vice versa).

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients with AP (68 in the HFNC group and 78 in the NIV group) were included in this study. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 17.6% and 19.2% in the NIV group - a risk difference of -1.6% (95% CI, -11.3 to 14.0%; P = 0.806). The most common causes of failure in the HFNC group were aggravation of respiratory distress and hypoxemia. However, in the NIV group, the most common reasons for failure were treatment intolerance and exacerbation of respiratory distress. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (16.7% vs 60.0%, 95% CI -66.8 to -6.2; P = 0.023). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (≥28), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score (≥15), partial arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen (≤200), and respiratory rate (≥32/min) at 1 hour were independent predictors of HFNC failure.

CONCLUSION

In AP patients with mild-moderate ARDS, the usage of HFNC did not lead to a higher rate of treatment failure when compared to NIV. HFNC is an ideal choice of respiratory support for patients with NIV intolerance, but clinical application should pay attention to the influencing factors of its treatment failure.

Effects of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in bronchiectasis and hypercapnia: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with bronchiectasis experiencing hypercapnia remains unclear. Our aim was to retrospectively analyze the short-term outcomes of HFNC therapy in such patients, and to further explore the predictors of HFNC treatment failure in this particular patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on patients with bronchiectasis who received HFNC (n = 70) for hypercapnia (arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, PaCO2 ≥ 45 mmHg) between September 2019 and September 2023.

RESULTS

In the study population, 30% of patients presented with acidemia (arterial pH < 7.35) at baseline. Within 24 h of HFNC treatment, there was a significant reduction in PaCO2 levels by a mean of 4.0 ± 12.7 mmHg (95% CI -7.0 to -1.0 mmHg). Concurrently, arterial pH showed a statistically significant increase with a mean change of 0.03 ± 0.06 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.04). The overall hospital mortality rate in our study was 17.5%. The median length of hospital stay was 11.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0 to 16.0 days). Sub-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in hospital mortality (19.0% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.896), length of hospital stay (median 14.0 days [IQR 9.0 to 18.0 days] vs. 10.0 days [IQR 7.0 to 16.0 days], p = 0.117) and duration of HFNC application (median 5.0 days [IQR 2.0 to 8.5 days] vs. 6.0 days [IQR 4.9 to 9.5 days], p = 0.076) between the acidemia group and the non-acidemia group (arterial pH ≥ 7.35). However, more patients in the non-acidemia group had do-not-intubate orders. The overall treatment failure rate for HFNC was 28.6%. Logistic regression analysis identified the APACHE II score (OR 1.24 per point) as the independent predictor of HFNC failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with bronchiectasis and hypercapnia, HFNC as an initial respiratory support can effectively reduce PaCO2 level within 24 h of treatment. A high APACHE II score has emerged as a prognostic indicator for HFNC treatment failure. These observations highlight randomized controlled trials to meticulously evaluate the efficacy of HFNC in this specific population.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

Noninvasive respiratory support in the emergency department: Controversies and state-of-the-art recommendations

Acute respiratory failure is a common reason for emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Diverse underlying physiologic abnormalities lead to unique aspects about the most common causes of acute respiratory failure: acute decompensated heart failure, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute de novo hypoxemic respiratory failure. Noninvasive respiratory support strategies are increasingly used methods to support work of breathing and improve gas exchange abnormalities to improve outcomes relative to conventional oxygen therapy or invasive mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive respiratory support includes noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow, each with unique physiologic mechanisms. This paper will review the physiology of respiratory failure and noninvasive respiratory support modalities and offer data and guideline-driven recommendations in the context of key clinical controversies.

Effect of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler combined with nasal high-flow nasal cannula on elderly patients with COPD and respiratory failure

Objective

To explore the clinical effect of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) combined with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the treatment of elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory failure.

Methods

The clinical records of 94 elderly patients with COPD and respiratory failure who were treated in Yongkang First People's Hospital from February 2022 to January 2023 were retrospectively selected. Among them, 46 patients received HFNC alone (Control-group) and 48 patients received HFNC combined with BGF MDI (Study-group). The treatment effect, arterial blood gas status, pulmonary function, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score before and after treatment were analyzed in both groups.

Results

The total efficacy of treatment in the Study-group (95.8%) was higher than that in the Control-group (78.3%) (P<0.05). After treatment, the partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2), residual volume, and APACHE II scores in the two groups decreased compared to those before treatment, with the Study-group lower overall. However, arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), the percentage of peak expiratory flow (PEF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) as percent of predicted (%FEV1) were higher than before treatment, and higher in the Study-group (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with HFNC alone, BGF MDI combined with HFNC can effectively regulate the arterial blood gas status of elderly patients with COPD and respiratory failure, restore pulmonary function, and improve the overall treatment effect.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy in the Management of Respiratory Failure: A Review

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining traction globally as a treatment for respiratory failure. There are several physiological benefits, and there is a growing body of evidence showing improved quality of life and patient comfort with HFNC, both in acute and home settings. Due to the increased burden of long-term respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on healthcare systems worldwide, the role of ward-based and post-discharge interventions in the prevention of hospital readmissions is an area of increasing interest. In this narrative review, we outline the physiological effects of HFNC and assess its applications in both the hospital and home settings for acute and chronic respiratory failure. We also consider the evidence of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus HFNC in the hospital setting and the application of HFNC at home in stable hypercapnic respiratory failure to improve the quality of life and prevent readmissions. We also look at applications of HFNC in specific circumstances, such as the perioperative period, emergency department, and acute (mainly critical care) setting including in immunocompromised patients and palliative care.

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

RATIONALE

The optimal treatment for early hypoxemic respiratory failure is unclear, and both high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation are used. Determining clinically relevant outcomes for evaluating non-invasive respiratory support modalities remains a challenge.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation within 24 hours of Emergency Department arrival (1/2018-12/2022). We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, non-invasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a Win Ratio.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

1,265 patients met inclusion criteria. 795 (62.8%) received high-flow oxygen and 470 (37.2%) received non-invasive ventilation. We propensity score matched 736/1,265 (58.2%) patients. There was no difference between non-invasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal cannula in 28-day mortality (17.7% vs 23.1%, p=0.08) or ventilator-free days (median [Interquartile Range]: 28 [25, 28] vs 28 [13, 28], p=0.50), but patients on non-invasive ventilation required treatment for fewer hours (median 7 vs 13, p< 0.001). Win Ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored non-invasive ventilation (1.26, 95%CI 1.06-1.49, p< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation was superior to high-flow nasal cannula for major pulmonary adverse events. Evaluation of composite outcomes is important in the assessment of respiratory support modalities.

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation after extubation on successful extubation in obese patients: a retrospective analysis of the MIMIC-IV database

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiological characteristics of the respiratory system of obese patients differ from those of non-obese patients. Few studies have evaluated the effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) on the prognosis of obese patients. We here compared the effects of these two techniques on the prevention of reintubation after extubation for obese patients.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database. Patients who underwent HFNC or NIV treatment after extubation were assigned to the HFNC or NIV group, respectively. The reintubation risk within 96 hours postextubation was compared between the two groups using a doubly robust estimation method. Propensity score matching was performed for both groups.

RESULTS

This study included 757 patients (HFNC group: n=282; NIV group: n=475). There was no significant difference in the risk of reintubation within 96 hours after extubation for the HFNC group compared with the NIV group (OR 1.50, p=0.127). Among patients with body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, the HFNC group had a significantly lower risk of reintubation within 96 hours after extubation (OR 0.06, p=0.016). No significant differences were found in reintubation rates within 48 hours (15.6% vs 11.0%, p=0.314) and 72 hours (16.9% vs 13.0%, p=0.424), as well as in hospital mortality (3.2% vs 5.2%, p=0.571) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (1.3% vs 5.2%, p=0.108) between the two groups. However, the HFNC group had significantly longer hospital stays (14 days vs 9 days, p=0.005) and ICU (7 days vs 5 days, p=0.001) stays.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that HFNC therapy is not inferior to NIV in preventing reintubation in obese patients and appears to be advantageous in severely obese patients. However, HFNC is associated with significantly longer hospital stays and ICU stays.

Acute dyspnea in the emergency department: a clinical review

Acute dyspnea represents one of the most frequent symptoms leading to emergency room evaluation. Its significant prognostic value warrants a careful evaluation. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is complex due to the lack of specificity and the loose association between its intensity and the severity of the underlying pathological condition. The initial assessment of dyspnea calls for prompt diagnostic evaluation and identification of optimal monitoring strategy and provides information useful to allocate the patient to the most appropriate setting of care. In recent years, accumulating evidence indicated that lung ultrasound, along with echocardiography, represents the first rapid and non-invasive line of assessment that accurately differentiates heart, lung or extra-pulmonary involvement in patients with dyspnea. Moreover, non-invasive respiratory support modalities such as high-flow nasal oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure have aroused major clinical interest, in light of their efficacy and practicality to treat patients with dyspnea requiring ventilatory support, without using invasive mechanical ventilation. This clinical review is focused on the pathophysiology of acute dyspnea, on its clinical presentation and evaluation, including ultrasound-based diagnostic workup, and on available non-invasive modalities of respiratory support that may be required in patients with acute dyspnea secondary or associated with respiratory failure.

Effect of modified high-flow oxygen therapy on positive end-expiratory pressure and end-expiratory lung volume based on simulated lung platform

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of modified high-flow oxygen therapy on end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in tracheotomized patients with normal pulmonary, acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

A ventilator and an artificial lung model were used to simulate the normal or strong inspiratory effort state of normal lung, AHRF and COPD patients. The traditional high-flow respiratory humidification therapy device connected with a standard interface (group A), and the modified therapy device added two types of resistance valves (group B, inner diameter 7.7 mm, length 24.0 mm; group C, inner diameter 7.7 mm, length 34.0 mm) to the exhalation end of the standard interface. The changes of end-expiratory lung volume (ΔEELV) and PEEP with the increase of flow rate (10 L/min, 20 L/min, 30 L/min, 40 L/min, 50 L/min, 60 L/min) in the three groups was recorded.

Results

Under simulated conditions of normal lung, AHRF and COPD, as the flow rate increased by using the modified therapy device, the PEEP values in all groups showed an exponential increasing trend, and the ΔEELV also increased accordingly. In addition, under the same flow rate level, the PEEP values of the two modified high-flow oxygen therapies (Group B and Group C) were significantly higher than those of the standard high-flow oxygen therapy (Group A) (p < 0.05). In the normal lung model with normal or strong inspiratory effort, and in the AHRF or COPD model with strong inspiratory effort, when the flow rate was higher than 30 L/min, the PEEP levels of Group B were significantly lower than those of Group C (p < 0.05). In the AHRF model with normal inspiratory effort, when the flow rate was between 10 L/min and 60 L/min, the PEEP levels of Group B were significantly lower than those of Group C (p < 0.05). Moreover, in the COPD model with normal inspiratory effort, the PEEP levels of Group B were significantly lower than that of Group C only when the flow rate was 60 L/min (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The addition of different types of resistance valves to the high-flow exhalation end may be a feasible solution to improve the clinical efficacy of tracheotomized high-flow oxygen therapy.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but the effect of HFNC on clinical outcomes in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is still uncertain.

Methods

We searched electronic literature databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in hypercapnic patients with AECOPD. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was PaCO₂, PaO_2, and SpO₂. The secondary outcomes were the respiratory rate, mortality, complications, and intubation rate.

Results

We included 7 RCTs with a total of 481 patients. There were no significant differences on measures of PaCO₂ (MD = -0.42, 95%CI -3.60 to 2.75, Z = 0.26, and P = 0.79), PaO₂ (MD = -1.36, 95%CI -4.69 to 1.97, Z = 0.80, and P = 0.42), and SpO₂ (MD = -0.78, 95%CI -1.67 to 0.11, Z = 1.72, P = 0.08) between the HFNC group and the NIV group. There was no significant difference in measures of the mortality and intubation rate between the HFNC group (OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.69, Z = 0.76, and P = 0.44) and the NIV group (OR = 2.38, 95%CI 0.49 to 11.50, Z = 1.08, and P = 0.28), respectively. But the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group (MD = -1.13, 95%CI -2.13 to -0.14, Z = 2.23, and P = 0.03), and fewer complications were found in the HFNC group (OR = 0.26, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.47, Z = 4.46, and P < 0.00001).

Conclusion

NIV was noninferior to HFNC in decreasing PaCO₂ and increasing PaO₂ and SpO₂. Similarly, the mortality and intubation rate was similar among the two groups. The respiratory rate and complications were inferior in the AECOPD group treated with HFNC.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Ventilation in AECOPD Patients with Respiratory Acidosis: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background

Limited data are available about the clinical outcomes of AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis treated with HFNC versus NIV.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of HFNC with NIV as initial ventilation support strategy in AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to increase between-group comparability. Kaplan-Meier analysis was utilized to evaluate differences between the HFNC success, HFNC failure, and NIV groups. Univariate analysis was performed to identify the features that differed significantly between the HFNC success and HFNC failure groups.

Results

After screening 2219 hospitalization records, 44 patients from the HFNC group and 44 from the NIV group were successfully matched after PSM. The 30-day mortality (4.5% versus 6.8%, p = 0.645) and 90-day mortality (4.5% versus 11.4%, p = 0.237) did not differ between the HFNC and NIV groups. Length of ICU stay (median: 11 versus 18 days, p = 0.001), length of hospital stay (median: 14 versus 20 days, p = 0.001), and hospital cost (median: 4392 versus 8403 $USD, p = 0.001) were significantly lower in the HFNC group compared with NIV group. The treatment failure rate was much higher in the HFNC group than in the NIV group (38.6% versus 11.4%, p = 0.003). However, patients who experienced HFNC failure and switched to NIV showed similar clinical outcomes to those who first received NIV. Univariate analysis showed that log NT-proBNP was an important factor for HFNC failure (p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Compared with NIV, HFNC followed by NIV as rescue therapy may be a viable initial ventilation support strategy for AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis. NT-proBNP may be an important factor for HFNC failure in these patients. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed for more accurate and reliable results.

The use of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease under exacerbation and stable phases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been increasingly utilized in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, the effects on reducing the need for intubation or reintubation remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate whether HFNC therapy was superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with COPD.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in electronic databases until October 1st, 2022. The primary outcome was the need for intubation/reintubation. All analyses were performed using R (version 4.0.3) and STATA SE (version 15.1).

RESULTS

When HFNC therapy was compared with NIV in patients with COPD under initial respiratory support and postextubation, no significant differences were found in the risk of intubation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.98) and reintubation (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.50). Compared to NIV, HFNC therapy did not decrease the partial pressure of carbon dioxide or increase the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen. However, HFNC therapy was associated with a lower incidence of skin breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69) and a higher comfort score (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.20) than NIV. When HFNC therapy was compared with COT during initial respiratory treatment for COPD exacerbation, a lower risk of treatment failure was found (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89). When HFNC therapy was compared with long-term oxygen therapy, quality of life (measured by SGRQ-C) was significantly improved (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.14).

CONCLUSION

HFNC therapy might be used as an alternative to NIV for COPD exacerbation with mild-moderate hypercapnia under close monitoring and is a potential domiciliary treatment for stable COPD.

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 oxygen therapy for admitted COPD-patients. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasing in admitted COPD-patients and could provide a step in between non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard oxygen supply. Recent studies demonstrated that HFNC is capable of facilitating secretion removal and reduce the work of breathing. Therefore, it might be of advantage in the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). No randomized trials have assessed this for admitted COPD-patients on a regular ward and only limited data from non-randomized studies is available.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to identify the reasons to initiate treatment with HFNC in a group of COPD-patients during an exacerbation, further identify those most likely to benefit from HFNC treatment and to find factors associated with treatment success on the pulmonary ward.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included COPD-patients admitted to the pulmonary ward and treated with HFNC from April 2016 until April 2019. Only patients admitted with severe acute exacerbations were included. Patients who had an indication for NIV-treatment where treated with NIV and were included only if they subsequently needed HFNC, e.g. when they did not tolerate NIV. Known asthma patients were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 173 patients were included. Stasis of sputum was the indication most reported to initiate HFNC-treatment. Treatment was well tolerated in 83% of the patients. Cardiac and vascular co-morbidities were significantly associated with a smaller chance of successful treatment (Respectively OR = 0.435; p = 0.013 and OR = 0.493;p = 0.035). Clinical assessment judged HFNC-treatment to be successful in 61% of the patients. Furthermore, in-hospital treatment with NIV was associated with a higher chance of HFNC failure afterwards (OR = 0.439; p = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

This large retrospective study showed that HFNC-treatment in patients with an AECOPD was initiated most often for sputum stasis as primary reason. Factors associated with improved outcomes of HFNC-treatment was the absence of vascular and/or cardiac co-morbidities and no need for in-hospital NIV-treatment.

Transnasal High-Flow Oxygen Therapy versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Treatment of COPD with Type II Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of transnasal high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNT) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with type II respiratory failure.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS) on the efficacy of HFNT and NIV in the treatment of COPD. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software after two researchers screened literatures, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

A total of 948 patients were included in 12 RCTS. Comprehensive analysis results showed that the HFNC group had higher levels of 12 h-PAO2, 48 h-PACO2 and, 48 h-pH than the NIV group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in 24 h-PAO2 and 72 h-PAO2, 12 h-PACO2, 24 h-PACO2 and 72 h-PACO2, 24 h-pH, 48 h-pH, and 72 h-pH between the two groups after treatment (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with NIV, HFNC does not increase the treatment failure rate in COPD patients with type II respiratory failure, and HFNC has better comfort and tolerance, which is a new potential respiratory support treatment for COPD patients with type II respiratory failure.

Analysis of the Prognostic Impact of Staged Nursing Interventions on the Treatment of Patients with COPD Combined with Type II Respiratory Failure

Objective

To analyze the prognostic impact of staged nursing interventions on the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) combined with type II respiratory failure.

Methods

120 patients with COPD combined with type II respiratory failure admitted to our hospital between January 2021 and January 2022 were divided into a control group and a study group, with 60 patients in each group. The control group received conventional strategy interventions, and the study group received staged nursing interventions. Pulmonary function, blood gases, health impairment, knowledge, mood, hope level, and quality of survival were evaluated before and after patient care, and satisfaction and the impact on patient prognosis were assessed.

Results

The improvement of pulmonary function and blood gas in the study group was better than that in the control group aftercare, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Health impairment and mood scores were lower in the study group compared to the control group aftercare, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Knowledge awareness, hope, and quality of survival scores were higher in the study group compared to the control group aftercare, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The rate of excellent prognosis and satisfaction was higher in the study group compared with the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The implementation of staged nursing interventions during the treatment of patients with COPD combined with type II respiratory failure can significantly improve patient prognosis and has a high application value.

Comparison of Conventional Oxygen Therapy With High-Flow Nasal Oxygenation in the Management of Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

Introduction: The effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure (RF) remains controversial. The current study compared the effectiveness of HFNO in patients with hypercapnic RF with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

Objectives: The primary objective was to compare changes in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) between those receiving COT and HFNO. The secondary objectives were to compare changes in the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiratory rate (RR), serum bicarbonate level, base excess, lactate level, and incidence of the need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and mechanical ventilation (MV).

Methods: We recruited 30 patients with mild to moderate hypercapnic RF in the HFNO group, and data of 30 patients from historical controls, who matched the inclusion criteria, were obtained from medical records for comparison (COT group). The study was terminated after two hours, and patients were managed per the existing protocol after that. Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis was repeated at the baseline, first, second, and third hours.

Results: In the COT group, the mean RR at the baseline, first, second, and third hours was 24.5 ± 2.61, 24.9 ± 3.03, 26.03 ± 3.4, and 22.90 ± 1.86, whereas, in the HFNO group, it was 25.93 ± 3.91, 23.00 ± 3.54, 22.50 ± 3.38, and 21.90 ± 3.57, respectively. The mean PaCO2 in the COT vs. HFNO groups was 54.45 ± 5.83 vs. 62.22 ± 9.15, 57.74 ± 6.05 vs. 58.65 ± 10.43, 60.79 ± 7.48 vs. 60.41 ± 11.24, and 55.23 ± 6.63 vs. 56.95 ± 10.31. The mean SpO2 in the COT group at these points of time was 94.50 ± 1.46, 95.4 ± 1.28, 96.10 ± 1.84, and 97.53 ± 2.05, whereas, in the HFNO group, it was 95.40 ± 2.55, 98.63 ± 1.43, 99.00 ± 1.66, and 99.50 ± 1.31, respectively. The patients who needed NIV after the study period were 50% and 36.67% in the COT and HFNO groups, respectively.

Conclusions: There was no change in PaCO2 levels with HFNO, but there was a significant improvement in SpO2 and PaO2 levels and a decreased RR. Following the termination of the study protocol, more patients in the COT group needed NIV than those in the HFNO group.

Use of high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute respiratory failure in general wards under intensivists supervision: a single center observational study

BACKGROUND

Few data exist on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) admitted to general wards.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate feasibility and safety of HFNC in general wards under the intensivist-supervision and after specific training.

METHODS

Patients with ARF (dyspnea, respiratory rate-RR > 25/min, 150 < PaO₂/FiO₂ < 300 mmHg during oxygen therapy) admitted to nine wards of an academic hospital were included. Gas-exchange, RR, and comfort were assessed before HFNC and after 2 and 24 h of application.

RESULTS

150 patients (81 male, age 74 [60-80] years, SOFA 4 [2-4]), 123 with de-novo ARF underwent HFNC with flow 60 L/min [50-60], FiO₂ 50% [36-50] and temperature 34 °C [31-37]. HFNC was applied a total of 1399 days, with a median duration of 7 [3-11] days. No major adverse events or deaths were reported. HFNC did not affect gas exchange but reduced RR (25-22/min at 2-24 h, p < 0.001), and improved Dyspnea Borg Scale (3-1, p < 0.001) and comfort (3-4, p < 0.001) after 24 h. HFNC failed in 20 patients (19.2%): 3 (2.9%) for intolerance, 14 (13.4%) escalated to NIV/CPAP in the ward, 3 (2.9%) transferred to ICU. Among these, one continued HFNC, while the other 2 were intubated and they both died. Predictors of HFNC failure were higher Charlson's Comorbidity Index (OR 1.29 [1.07-1.55]; p = 0.004), higher APACHE II Score (OR 1.59 [1.09-4.17]; p = 0.003), and cardiac failure as cause of ARF (OR 5.26 [1.36-20.46]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards, the use of HFNC after an initial training and daily supervision by intensivists was feasible and seemed safe. HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea, and respiratory rate without effects on gas exchanges. Trial registration This is a single-centre, noninterventional, retrospective analysis of clinical data.

Effect of High-Quality Nursing Care on Patients with Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Complicated with Respiratory Failure: An Observational Cohort Study

Background

To investigate the efficacy of high-quality nursing care on patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) complicated with respiratory failure.

Methods

A total of 84 AECOPD patients were included in this study. Lung function indexes, nursing satisfaction, and arterial blood gas index were collected to assess the efficacy of high-quality nursing care on patients with acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease complicated with respiratory failure.

Results

The level of lung function after treatment had a statistical difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). On other hand, the nursing satisfaction is improved in the observation group. The PaCO2 and PaO2 level was improved after treatment; there was statistical significance (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

High-quality nursing intervention has good therapeutic effect on acute exacerbation of COPD complicated with respiratory failure.

Hospital Cost Savings for Sequential COPD Patients Receiving Domiciliary Nasal High Flow Therapy

Purpose

To estimate the 5-year budget impact to Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) hospitals of domiciliary nasal high flow (NHF) therapy to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who require long term oxygen therapy.

Methods

Hospital admission counts along with length of stay were obtained from hospital records of 200 COPD patients enrolled in a 12-month randomized clinical trial of NHF in Denmark, both over a 12-month baseline and then in the study period while on randomized treatment (control or NHF). NZ costings from similar COPD patients were estimated using data from Middlemore Hospital, Auckland and were applied to the Danish trial. The budget impact of NHF was estimated over the predicted 5-year lifetime of the device when used by patients sequentially.

Results

Fifty-five of 100 patients in the NHF group and 44 of 100 patients in the control group were admitted to hospital with a respiratory diagnosis during the baseline year. They had 108 admissions in the treatment group vs 89 in the control group, with 632 vs 438 days in hospital, and modeled annual costs of $9443 vs $6512 per patient, respectively. During the study period there were 38 vs 44 patients with 67 vs 80 admissions and 302 vs 526 days in hospital, at a modeled annual cost of $6961 vs $9565 per patient respectively. Taking into account capital expenditure and running costs, this resulted in cost savings of $5535 per patient-year (95% CI, -$36 to -$11,034). With 90% usage over the estimated five-year lifetime of the NHF device, amortized capital costs of $594 per year and annual running costs of $662, we estimate a 5-year undiscounted cost saving per NHF device of $18,626 ($16,934 when discounted to net present value at 5% per annum). There would still be annual cost savings over a wide range of assumptions.

Conclusion

Domiciliary NHF therapy for patients with severe COPD has the potential to provide substantial hospital cost savings over the five-year lifetime of the NHF device.

Ipratropium bromide and noninvasive ventilation treatment for COPD

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effects of ipratropium bromide combined with non-invasive ventilation for patients with both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory failure.

METHODS

A total of 110 patients with both COPD and respiratory failure who were admitted to our hospital from April 2018 to August 2019 were enrolled in this study; of which 52 patients were treated with a noninvasive ventilator as Group A, and the rest were treated with ipratropium bromide combined with noninvasive ventilation as Group B. The two groups were compared for blood gas indexes, pulmonary function, and treatment efficacy, and adverse reactions.

RESULTS

After treatment, Group B showed better blood gas indexes and pulmonary function than Group A (both P < 0.05), and Group B also showed significantly lower levels of inflammatory factors than Group A (P < 0.05). In addition, the efficacy and life quality of Group B were better than those of Group A, and adverse reactions of Group B were less than those of Group A (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Ipratropium bromide combined with noninvasive ventilation is effective in the treatment of patients with both COPD and respiratory failure.

Research Progress on Diaphragm Ultrasound in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease of the respiratory system, and its prevalence and mortality remain high. COPD results in continuous impairment of lung function, which severely affects the patient's work and life. In severe cases, there will be acute respiratory failure, which endangers the lives of patients, and respiratory muscle dysfunction is one of the main reasons for this result. As the diaphragm is the most important inspiratory muscle, its dysfunction has a great impact on the deterioration of respiratory function in COPD patients. With the development of ultrasound, more and more studies have found that diaphragm ultrasound can play an important role in the diagnosis and treatment of COPD patients. The main purpose of this article is to review the research progress on diaphragm ultrasound in COPD and briefly introduce diaphragmatic ultrasound examination methods.

[Translated article] Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update. Diagnosis and Treatment of COPD Exacerbation Syndrome

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm3. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by covid-19: a retrospective study of the feasebility, safety and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO₂ and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19.

RESULTS

62.2% of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO₂ increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7% for NIV vs 21.4% for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1% for NIV vs 69.6% for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.

High Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in the Emergency Department: Main Benefits in Adults, Pediatric Population and against COVID-19: A Narrative Review

This review aims to summarize the literature’s main results about high flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) HFNC benefits in the Emergency Department (ED) in adults and pediatrics, including new Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). HFNC has recently been established as the usual treatment in the ED to provide oxygen support. Its use has been generalized due to its advantages over traditional oxygen therapy devices, including decreased nasopharyngeal resistance, washing out of the nasopharyngeal dead space, generation of positive pressure, increasing alveolar recruitment, easy adaptation due to the humidification of the airways, increased fraction of inspired oxygen and improved mucociliary clearance. A wide range of pathologies has been studied to evaluate the potential benefits of HFNC; some examples are heart failure, pneumonia, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, asthma, and bronchiolitis. The regular use of this oxygen treatment is not established yet due to the literature’s controversial results. However, several authors suggest that it could be useful in several pathologies that generate acute respiratory failure. Consequently, the COVID-19 irruption has generated the question of HFNC as a safety and effective treatment. Our results suggested that HFNC seems to be a useful tool in the ED, especially in patients affected by acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute heart failure, pneumonia, bronchiolitis, asthma and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients affected by COVID-19. Its benefits in hypercapnic respiratory failure are more discussed, being only observed benefits in patients with mild-moderate disease. These results are based in clinical as well as cost-effectiveness outcomes. Future studies with largest populations are required to confirm these results as well as establish a practical guideline to use this device.

The efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in patients with COPD and type II respiratory failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been used for the treatment of COPD and respiratory failure in clinical settings. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC therapy in patients with COPD and type II respiratory failure, to provide evidence to the clinical COPD management.

Methods

We searched Cochrane et al. databases up to Dec 31, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of HFNC therapy in patients with COPD and type II respiratory failure. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and evaluated the quality of the literature and extracted data. We used Revman5.3 software for statistical analysis of collected data.

Results

A total of 6 RCTs involving 525 COPD and type II respiratory failure patients. Meta-analyses indicated that compared with NIV, HFNC could significantly reduce PaCO₂ level (MD = − 2.64, 95% CI (− 3.12 to − 2.15)), length of hospital stay ((MD = – 1.19, 95 CI (− 2.23 to − 0.05)), the incidence of nasal facial skin breakdown ((OR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.03–0.41)). And there were no significant differences between the two groups in PaO₂ ((MD = 2.92, 95% CI (− 0.05 to 5.90)), incidence of tracheal intubation ((OR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.34–1.59)) and mortality (OR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.28–2.11)).

Conclusions

HFNC is more advantageous over NIV in the treatment of COPD and type II respiratory failure. Future studies with larger sample size and strict design are needed to further elucidate the role of HFNC in COPD and respiratory failure.

2021 Guideline for the Management of COPD Exacerbations: Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) / Turkish Thoracic Society (TTS) Clinical Practice Guideline Task Force

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an important public health problem that manifests with exacerbations and causes serious mortality and morbidity in both developed and developing countries. COPD exacerbations usually present to emergency departments, where these patients are diagnosed and treated. Therefore, the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey and the Turkish Thoracic Society jointly wanted to implement a guideline that evaluates the management of COPD exacerbations according to the current literature and provides evidence-based recommendations. In the management of COPD exacerbations, we aim to support the decision-making process of clinicians dealing with these patients in the emergency setting.

Effect of standardized enteral nutrition on AECOPD patients with respiratory failure

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of standardized enteral nutrition (EN) on nutritional indicators and immunological functioning of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with respiratory failure.

METHODS

We selected 92 cases of AECOPD patients with respiratory failure as the research objects, and classified them into two groups (control/observation group, n=46 respectively) according to random number table. Both groups were given conventional anti-infection and symptomatic treatment. In addition, the control group received diet support therapy, and the observation group was given standard EN treatment. Afterwards, the changes of nutritional indicators, immunological functioning, inflammatory indicators and cardiopulmonary function of the two groups before and after therapy were compared.

RESULTS

Hemoglobin (HB), serum albumin (ALB), and total protein (TP) of the two groups after treatment were critically higher than those before treatment, and the indicators in observation group in post-treatment were remarkably higher than those in control group (P<0.05); lymphocyte count (TLC), immunoglobulin A (IgA) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) of the two groups tremendously increased in post-treatment than before receiving treatment, and the post-treatment indicators of observation group were obviously higher than those of control group (P<0.05); high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) in two groups sharply decreased after treatment comparing to which before treatment, and the observation group had notably lower post-treatment indexes than that of the control group (P<0.05); Ejection minutes (LVEF), NT proBNP, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂), partial pressure of blood oxygen (PaO₂) and pH of the two groups had remarkably improved after treatment, and the improvement effect in observation group was superior to that in control group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The standard EN can substantially improve the nutritional status and immunological functioning of AECOPD patients with respiratory failure, reduce the inflammatory indicators, and promote their cardiopulmonary function.

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.

An Integrated Model including the ROX Index to Predict the Success of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Use after Planned Extubation: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is commonly used to prevent reintubation after planned extubation. In clinical practice, there are no appropriate tools to evaluate whether HFNC therapy was successful or failed after planned extubation. In this retrospective observational study, we investigated whether the use of the ROX index was appropriate to differentiate between HFNC success and failure within 72 h after extubation and to develop an integrated model including the ROX index to improve the prediction of HFNC success in patients receiving HFNC therapy after planned extubation. Of 276 patients, 50 patients (18.1%) were reintubated within 72 h of extubation. ROX index values of >8.7 at 2 h, >8.7 at 6 h, and >10.4 at 12 h after HFNC therapy were all meaningful predictors of HFNC success in extubated patients. In addition, the integrated model including the ROX index had a better predictive capability for HFNC success than the ROX index alone. In conclusion, the ROX index at 2, 6, and 12 h could be applied to extubated patients to predict HFNC success after planned extubation. To improve its predictive power, we should also consider an integrated model consisting of the ROX index, sex, body mass index, and the total duration of ventilator care.

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.

Safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula therapy in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure - a retrospective audit

BACKGROUND

While the role of high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) in the management of respiratory failure continues to expand, few studies describe its use in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.

AIMS

In this retrospective study we assessed the safety and efficacy of HFNC for treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.

METHODS

Admissions with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure to a thoracic medicine unit at a tertiary centre between January and August 2018 were included if treated with either HFNC or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The primary outcome was post-treatment change in arterial pCO₂ . Demographics, comorbidities, length of stay, readmission rate and mortality were also collected.

RESULTS

64 patients were identified, comprising 69 presentations grouped according to initial treatment: HFNC (n=24) or NIV (n=45). Patients in the NIV group had more severe blood gas derangement. In both groups, mean arterial pCO₂ improved significantly (-10 (95% CI: -14 to -6) mmHg) from baseline with no evidence of a differential effect between groups. Six (25%) patients were transitioned from HFNC to NIV, of whom 3 had comorbid obesity and 2 had sleep disordered breathing. No significant differences in hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission rate or 90-day mortality were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC may be a reasonable initial treatment for patients with mild acute hypercapnic respiratory failure who do not have comorbid obesity or sleep disordered breathing. Prospective study may help identify clinical factors or phenotypes predictive of success with this treatment modality. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021 Update Diagnosis and Treatment af COPD Exacerbation Syndrome

This article details the GesEPOC 2021 recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD exacerbation syndrome (CES). The guidelines propose a definition-based syndromic approach, a new classification of severity, and the recognition of different treatable traits (TT), representing a new step toward personalized medicine. The evidence is evaluated using GRADE methodology, with the incorporation of 6 new PICO questions. The diagnostic process comprises four stages: 1) establish a diagnosis of CES, 2) assess the severity of the episode, 3) identify the trigger, and 4) address TTs. This diagnostic process differentiates an outpatient approach, that recommends the inclusion of a basic battery of tests, from a more comprehensive hospital approach, that includes the study of different biomarkers and imaging tests. Bronchodilator treatment for immediate relief of symptoms is considered essential for all patients, while the use of antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids, oxygen therapy, and assisted ventilation and the treatment of comorbidities will vary depending on severity and possible TTs. The use of antibiotics will be indicated particularly if sputum color changes, when ventilatory assistance is required, in cases involving pneumonia, and in patients with elevated C-reactive protein (≥ 20 mg/L). Systemic corticosteroids are recommended in CES that requires admission and are suggested in moderate CES. These drugs are more effective in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/mm³. Acute-phase non-invasive mechanical ventilation is specified primarily for patients with CES who develop respiratory acidosis despite initial treatment.

Sequential treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease concurrent with respiratory failure by high-flow nasal cannula therapy

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the efficacy of sequential treatment with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) concomitant with respiratory failure.

METHODS

A total of 100 COPD patients concomitant with respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation from June 2019 to May 2020 in our hospital were enrolled and then divided into two groups according to the random number table, with 50 in each group. Pulmonary infection control window (PIC) was used as a switching point for sequential ventilation. The control group (CNG) received non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), while the study group (SG) underwent HFNC. The efficacy, complications and 48 h reintubation rate of the two groups were statistically analyzed. The respiratory parameters, diaphragmatic parameters, diaphragmatic excursion during quiet breathing (DEq), diaphragmatic rapid shallow breathing index (D-RSBI), COPD score (CAT), 6-min walk test (6 MWT) score (Borg), General Comfort Questionnaire (GCQ), sputum viscosity, and serum factors were observed before intubation and after 48 hours of intubation.

RESULTS

The overall response rate (94.00%) in SG was higher than that in CNG (80.00%) (P < 0.05); SG had lower RR, PaCO₂ and D-RSBI at 48 hours after extubation and higher PaO₂/FiO₂ and DEd than CNG (P < 0.05); SG exhibited lower CAT and Borg at 48 hours after extubation and higher GCQ score than CNG (P < 0.05); SG had lower sputum viscosity at 48 hours after extubation than CNG (P < 0.05); SG showed lower ET-1, NLR and NT-proBNP levels at 48 hours after extubation than CNG (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HFNC sequential therapy is effective and safe in the treatment of COPD concomitantly with respiratory failure. It can improve respiratory function and diaphragmatic function, reduce dyspnea and fatigue, reduce sputum viscosity, regulate serum factors, and make patients enjoy higher comfort.

High-Flow Oxygen Therapy Application in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients With Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter Study

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of high-flow oxygen implementation on the respiratory rate as a first-line ventilation support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Design

Multicenter, prospective, analytic observational case series study.

Setting

Five ICUs in Argentina, between August 2018 and September 2019.

Patients

Patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who had been admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, were entered in the study.

Interventions

High-flow oxygen therapy through nasal cannula delivered using high-velocity nasal insufflation.

Measurements and Main Results

Forty patients were studied, 62.5% severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. After the first hour of high-flow nasal cannula implementation, there was a significant decrease of respiratory rate compared with baseline values, with a 27% decline (29 vs 21 breaths/min; p < 0.001). Furthermore, a significant reduction of Paco₂ (57 vs 52 mm Hg [7.6 vs 6.9 kPa]; p < 0.001) was observed. The high-flow nasal cannula application failed in 18% patients. In this group, the respiratory rate, pH, and Paco₂ showed no significant change during the first hour in these patients.

Conclusions

High-flow oxygen therapy through nasal cannula delivered using high-velocity nasal insufflation was an effective tool for reducing respiratory rate in these chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Early determination and subsequent monitoring of clinical and blood gas parameters may help predict the outcome.

High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation as initial ventilatory strategy in COPD exacerbation: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial

Background

The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO₂ clearance after 2 h of treatment.

Methods

We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO₂ from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO₂ at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes.

Results

Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO₂ reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO₂ reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO₂ reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis.

Conclusions

HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO₂ after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD.

Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in hypoxemic respiratory failure are widely recognized, it is yet unclear whether HFNC can effectively reduce the intubation rate and mortality in hypercapnic respiratory failure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficiency of HFNC in these patients.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was carried out. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to the inclusion criteria. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, respectively. Data from eligible trials were extracted for the meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with a total of 621 participants were included (six RCTs and two cohort studies). Our analysis showed that HFNC is noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with respect to intubation rate in both RCTs (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.45–1.88) and cohort studies (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55–1.62). Similarly, the analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in reducing mortality rates (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.42–2.20). Based on RCTs, NIV seemed more effective in reducing mortality (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.68–2.60), but the intertreatment difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between HFNC and NIV relating to change of blood gas analysis or respiratory rate (MD = −0.75, 95% CI: −2.6 to 1.09). Likewise, no significant intergroup differences were found with regard to intensive care unit stay (SMD = −0.07, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.11). Due to a physiological friendly interface and variation, HFNC showed a significant advantage over NIV in patients' comfort and complication of therapy.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations noted, HFNC may be an effective and safe alternative to prevent endotracheal intubation and mortality when NIV is unsuitable in mild-to-moderate hypercapnia. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.