Efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in moderate acute hypercapnic respiratory failure

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.

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.

Vocal Signs and Symptoms Related to COVID-19 and Risk Factors for their Persistence

OBJECTIVE

To compare the occurrence of vocal signs and symptoms before, during, and after coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and analyze possible risk factors for the persistence of these signs and symptoms after disease resolution.

METHODS

This was an observational, analytical, and cross-sectional study. The participants were 45 individuals of both sexes, with a mean age of 44 years, who were previously affected by COVID-19. All participants answered a questionnaire about sociodemographic data, smoking history, disease course, vocal complaints, and the vocal signs and symptoms list (SSL), referring to three timepoints (before, during, and after COVID-19).

RESULTS

The most commonly reported vocal signs and symptoms before COVID-19 were phlegm (26.67%; n=12) and dry throat (24.44%; n=11). During COVID-19, the most frequent vocal signs and symptoms were tired voice after short-term use (73.33%; n=33) and dry throat (71.11%; n=32). After the disease, the most reported vocal signs and symptoms were dry throat (57.78%; n=26) and phlegm (53.33; n=24). The self-perception of vocal signs and symptoms before COVID-19 was lower than that during and after COVID-19 (P < 0.001). Vocal complaints after COVID-19 and oxygen therapy were predictors of self-perception of vocal signs and symptoms after COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals affected by COVID-19 had a higher frequency of vocal signs and symptoms during the disease. However, after remission, the frequency of vocal signs and symptoms was higher than that at baseline. The need for oxygen therapy may indicate a risk for a higher occurrence of vocal signs and symptoms after COVID-19.

International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients

(1) Background: High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has shown several benefits in addressing respiratory failure. However, the quality of evidence and the guidance for safe practice are lacking. This survey aimed to understand HFNT practice and the needs of the clinical community to support safe practice. (2) Method: A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to relevant healthcare professionals through national networks in the UK, USA and Canada; responses were collected between October 2020 and April 2021. (3) Results: In the UK and Canada, HFNT was used in 95% of hospitals, with the highest use being in the emergency department. HNFT was widely used outside of a critical care setting. HFNT was mostly used to treat acute type 1 respiratory failure (98%), followed by acute type 2 respiratory failure and chronic respiratory failure. Guideline development was felt to be important (96%) and urgent (81%). Auditing of practice was lacking in 71% of hospitals. In the USA, HFNT was broadly similar to UK and Canadian practice. (4) Conclusions: The survey results reveal several key points: (a) HFNT is used in clinical conditions with limited evidence; (b) there is a lack of auditing; (c) it is used in wards that may not have the appropriate skill mix; and (d) there is a lack of guidance for HFNT use.

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.

S/F and ROX indices in predicting failure of high-flow nasal cannula in children

BACKGROUND

A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a useful respiratory support for children with respiratory distress; however, it elevates the risk of belated intubation. Recently, indices based on percutaneous oxygen saturation, a fraction of inspired oxygen, and respiratory rate (RR) have been suggested for the prediction of HFNC failure. We aimed to evaluate various indices predicting HFNC failure in children who started receiving HFNC at a tertiary center for 27 months.

METHODS

Cases of HFNC failure were classified as hypoxic respiratory failure (HRF) or non-HRF (NHRF) depending on the cause of intubation. The ratio of percutaneous oxygen saturation to the fraction of inspired oxygen (S/F), the ratio of S/F to RR (ROX), the ratio of S/F to RR/median RR (ROX-M), and the ratio of S/F to z-score of RR (ROX-Z) were calculated and compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of the 152 cases, 45 (29.6%) failed to wean from the HFNC support, of which 21 (46.7%) were HRFs and 24 (53.3%) were NHRFs. The S/F and ROX-M at 6 h and 3 h, respectively, predicted HRF well with a high area under the curve. Initial hypercapnia and low weight were good predictors for NHRF.

CONCLUSIONS

For the management of children with HFNC, these risk factors and indicators should be monitored to make an early decision regarding intubation.

High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review

Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO 2 >6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO 2 clearance, the ability to communicate and comfort. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine whether HFNT in AT2RF improves 1) PaCO 2, 2) clinical and patient-centred outcomes and 3) to assess potential harms. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL  (January 1999-January 2021). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing HFNT with low flow nasal oxygen (LFO) or NIV were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Ottawa-Newcastle scale for cohort studies. Results: From 727 publications reviewed, four RCTs and one cohort study (n=425) were included. In three trials of HFNT vs NIV, comparing PaCO 2 (kPa) at last follow-up time point, there was a significant reduction at four hours (1 RCT; HFNT median 6.7, IQR 5.6 - 7.7 vs NIV median 7.6, IQR 6.3 - 9.3) and no significant difference at  24-hours or five days. Comparing HFNT with LFO, there was no significant difference at 30-minutes. There was no difference in intubation or mortality. Conclusions: This review identified a small number of studies with low to very low certainty of evidence. A reduction of PaCO 2 at an early time point of four hours post-intervention was demonstrated in one small RCT. Significant limitations of the included studies were lack of adequately powered outcomes and clinically relevant time-points and small sample size. Accordingly, systematic review cannot recommend the use of HFNT as the initial management strategy for AT2RF and trials adequately powered to detect clinical and patient-relevant outcomes are urgently warranted.

High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review

Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO 2 >6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO 2 clearance, the ability to communicate and comfort. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine whether HFNT in AT2RF improves 1) PaCO 2, 2) clinical and patient-centred outcomes and 3) to assess potential harms. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL  (January 1999-January 2021). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing HFNT with low flow nasal oxygen (LFO) or NIV were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Ottawa-Newcastle scale for cohort studies. Results: From 727 publications reviewed, four RCTs and one cohort study (n=425) were included. In three trials of HFNT vs NIV, comparing PaCO 2 (kPa) at last follow-up time point, there was a significant reduction at four hours (1 RCT; HFNT median 6.7, IQR 5.6 - 7.7 vs NIV median 7.6, IQR 6.3 - 9.3) and no significant difference at  24-hours or five days. Comparing HFNT with LFO, there was no significant difference at 30-minutes. There was no difference in intubation or mortality. Conclusions: This review identified a small number of studies with low to very low certainty of evidence. A reduction of PaCO 2 at an early time point of four hours post-intervention was demonstrated in one small RCT. Significant limitations of the included studies were lack of adequately powered outcomes and clinically relevant time-points and small sample size. Accordingly, systematic review cannot recommend the use of HFNT as the initial management strategy for AT2RF and trials adequately powered to detect clinical and patient-relevant outcomes are urgently warranted.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen in Patients Having Anesthesia for Advanced Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: HIFLOW-ENDO, a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Over 6 million esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures are performed in the United States each year. Patients having anesthesia for advanced EGD procedures, such as interventional procedures, are at high risk for hypoxemia.

METHODS

Our primary study aim was to evaluate whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia for advanced EGD. Secondarily, we studied whether HFNC oxygen reduces hypercarbia or hypotension. After obtaining written informed consent, adults having anesthesia for advanced EGD, expected to last longer than 15 minutes, were randomly assigned to receive HFNC oxygen or standard nasal cannula (SNC) oxygen. The primary outcome was occurrence of one or more hypoxemia events during anesthesia, defined by arterial oxygen saturation <92% for at least 15 consecutive seconds. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of one or more hypercarbia or hypotension events. A hypercarbia event was defined by a transcutaneous CO2 measurement 20 mm Hg or more above baseline, and a hypotension event was defined by a mean arterial blood pressure measurement 25% or more below baseline.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-one adult patients were enrolled and randomized, and 262 patients completed study procedures. Eight randomized patients did not complete study procedures due to changes in their anesthesia or endoscopy plan. One patient was excluded from analysis because their procedure was aborted after 1 minute. Patients who received HFNC oxygen (N = 132) had a significantly lower incidence of hypoxemia than those who received SNC oxygen (N = 130; 21.2% vs 33.1%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.36-0.95]; P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of hypercarbia or hypotension between the groups. The HR for hypercarbia with HFNC oxygen was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.89-1.88; P = .17), and the HR for hypotension was 1.25 (95% CI, 0.86-1.82; P = .25).

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia for advanced EGD and may offer an opportunity to enhance patient safety during these procedures.

Implementation of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy Outside the Intensive Care Setting

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an option for respiratory support in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure. To improve patient outcomes, reduce ICU-associated costs, and ease ICU bed availability, a multi-phased, comprehensive strategy was implemented to make HFNC available outside the ICU under the supervision of pulmonology or trauma providers in cooperation with a dedicated respiratory therapy team. The purpose of this study was to describe the education and implementation process for initiating HFNC therapy outside the ICU and to convey key patient demographics and outcomes from the implementation period.

METHODS

HFNC therapy was implemented at a tertiary hospital in the Midwest, with systematic roll-out to all in-patient floors over a 9-month period. Utilization of the therapy and patient outcomes were tracked to ensure safety and efficacy of the effort.

RESULTS

During the implementation period, 346 unique subjects met study inclusion criteria. Median (interquartile range) hospital length of stay was 8 d (4-12), and median duration of HFNC therapy was 44 h (18-90). Two thirds of subjects (n = 238) received the entire course of HFNC therapy outside the ICU, and more than half of subjects (n = 184) avoided the ICU for their entire hospitalization. Moreover, 6% of subjects in the study group escalated from HFNC to noninvasive ventilation, and 5% of subjects escalated from HFNC to mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive implementation process and a robust therapy protocol were integral to initiating and managing HFNC in all hospital locations. Study findings indicate that patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure can safely receive HFNC therapy outside the ICU with appropriate patient selection and staff education.

Clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients undergoing ERCP under sedation

Hypoxemia can occur during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) and it is difficult to achieve adequate ventilation with the prone position. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been recommended to be more effectively help ventilation than conventional low flow oxygen. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of HFNO during sedated ERCP and to identify predictors of desaturation during ERCP. The investigated variables were age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes (ASA), duration of exam, and sedative used for midazolam or/and propofol of 262 patients with sedated ERCP. The differences between categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using the Student's t test and the chi-square test. Desaturation (SpO2 ≤ 90%) occurred in 9(3.4%) patients among 262 patients during sedated ERCP. The variables found to predict desaturation were older age (p < 0.01), higher sedation dose for midazolam or propofol (p < 0.01), and use of midazolam (p < 0.01). Desaturation rate was lower during sedated ERCP with HFNO compared to the preliminary study with conventional low flow nasal oxygen. Patients with older age, higher sedation dose, or the use of midazolam might require close monitoring for desaturation and hypoventilation by nursing staff. The study shows the use of high-flow nasal oxygen reduces the incidence of desaturation during ERCP.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy for initial oxygen administration in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: study protocol of randomised controlled unblinded trial

Introduction

Acute respiratory failure is a common clinical condition accounting for nearly 116 000 admissions in the UK hospitals. Acute type 2 respiratory failure is also called acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) and characterised by an elevated arterial CO₂ level of >6 kPa due to pump failure. Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is the most common cause of AHRF. High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) is a new oxygen delivery system that uses an oxygen-air blender to deliver flow rates of up to 60 L/min. The gas is delivered humidified and heated to the patient via wide-bore nasal cannula.

Methods and analysis

We hypothesised that HFNC as the initial oxygen administration method will reduce the number of patients with AHRF requiring non-invasive ventilation in patients at 6 hours post intervention when compared with low-flow nasal oxygen (LFO). A randomised single-centre unblinded controlled trial is designed to test our hypothesis. The trial will compare two oxygen administration methods, HFNT versus LFO. Patients will be randomised to one of the two arms if they fulfil the eligibility criteria. The sample size is 82 adult patients (41 HFNT and 41 LFO) presenting to the emergency department.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was obtained from the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (REC reference: 20/NI/0049). Dissemination will be achieved in several ways: (1) the findings will be presented at national and international meetings with open-access abstracts online and (2) in accordance with the open-access policies proposed by the leading research funding bodies we aim to publish the findings in high-quality peer-reviewed open-access journals.

Trial registration number

The trial was prospectively registered at the clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT04640948) on 20 November 2020.

Nasal high-flow oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation in acute exacerbation of COPD: protocol for a randomised noninferiority clinical trial

Background

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is considered as the first-line treatment for acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) complicated by respiratory acidosis. Recent studies demonstrate a role of nasal high-flow oxygen (NHF) in AECOPD as an alternative treatment in patients intolerant to NIV or with contraindications to it.

Aim

The study aimed to evaluate whether NHF respiratory support is noninferior compared to NIV in respect to treatment failure, defined as need for intubation or change to alternative treatment group, in patients with AECOPD and mild-to-moderate acute or acute-on-chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Methods

We designed a multicentre, prospective, randomised trial on patients with AECOPD, who have pH<7.35 but >7.25 and P_aCO2 >45 mmHg, in whom NIV is indicated as a first-line treatment. According to power analysis, 498 participants will be required for establishing noninferiority of NHF compared to NIV. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive NIV or NHF. Treatment will be adjusted to maintain S_pO2 between 88%–92% for both groups. Arterial blood gases, respiratory variables, comfort, dyspnoea score and any pulmonary or extrapulmonary complications will be assessed at baseline, before treatment initiation, and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48 h, then once daily from day 3 to patient discharge, intubation or death.

Conclusion

Given the increasing number of studies demonstrating the physiological effects of NHF in COPD patients, we hypothesise that NHF respiratory support will be noninferior to NIV in patients with AECOPD and mild-to-moderate acute or acute on chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Nasal high-flow oxygen could be an effective alternative to NIV respiratory support for patients with mild-to-moderate #AECOPD, especially for those who do not tolerate or have contraindications for NIVhttps://bit.ly/3bgxDYx

Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Arterial Blood Gas Parameters in the Emergency Department

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is becoming an integral part of respiratory failure management. Effects of HFNC on arterial blood gas (ABG) parameters especially partial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) require further investigation to provide insight into the efficacy and safety of the treatment.

Methods: Acute respiratory failure patients with sequential ABG parameters before and after initiating HFNC between June 2015 and June 2017 were analyzed in a tertiary academic center. Patients' baseline characteristics were evaluated and sequential ABG changes were compared and subgrouped as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), respiratory acidosis, hypercapnia, and high lactate.

Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled in the study. There was a significant difference between the mean partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), lactate, and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) values between sequential ABGs after HFNC (P <0.001). In the COPD group (n=32), there was a significant difference between initial ABG means of PaO2, lactate, and SpO2 values and sequential ABG means (p<0.001). Hypercapnic patients PaCO2 levels were significantly lower after HFNC (p<0.001), while in the COPD group there was no significant change in PaCO2 values (p=0.068).

Conclusions: Treatment with HFNC produced improvement of blood gas parameters in subjects with acute respiratory failure in the emergency department (ED). These results suggest that HFNC can be used in hypercapnic patients as well as hypoxemic patients. Further randomized controlled studies required to establish the impact of HFNC in the ED.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients after extubation: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is being increasingly used to prevent post-extubation hypoxemic respiratory failure and reintubation. However, evidence to support the use of HFNC in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure after extubation is limited. This study was conducted to test if HFNC is non-inferior to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing post-extubation treatment failure in COPD patients previously intubated for hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Methods

COPD patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure who were already receiving invasive ventilation were randomized to HFNC or NIV at extubation at two large tertiary academic teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either resumption of invasive ventilation or switching to the other study treatment modality (NIV for patients in the NFNC group or vice versa).

Results

Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group or NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 44 patients in the HFNC group and 42 patients in the NIV group were included in the analysis. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.7% and 28.6% in the NIV group—risk difference of − 5.8% (95% CI, − 23.8–12.4%, p = 0.535), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior margin of 9%. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure showed that treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group, with a risk difference of − 50.0% (95% CI, − 74.6 to − 12.9%, p = 0.015). One hour after extubation, the mean respiratory rates of both groups were faster than their baseline levels before extubation (p < 0.050). Twenty-four hours after extubation, the respiratory rate of the HFNC group had returned to baseline, but the NIV group was still higher than the baseline. Forty-eight hours after extubation, the respiratory rates of both groups were not significantly different from the baseline. The average number of daily airway care interventions in the NIV group was 7 (5–9.3), which was significantly higher than 6 (4–7) times in the HFNC group (p = 0.006). The comfort score and incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown of the HFNC group was also significantly better than that of the NIV group [7 (6–8) vs 5 (4–7), P < 0.001] and [0 vs 9.6%, p = 0.027], respectively.

Conclusion

Among COPD patients with severe hypercapnic respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation, the use of HFNC after extubation did not result in increased rates of treatment failure compared with NIV. HFNC also had better tolerance and comfort than NIV.

Trial registration

chictr.org (ChiCTR1800018530). Registered on 22 September 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx

Noninvasive Ventilation and High-Flow Nasal Therapy Administration in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is considered to be the standard of care for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. It can be delivered safely in any dedicated setting, from emergency rooms to high dependency or intensive care units and wards. NIV helps improving dyspnea and gas exchange, reduces the need for endotracheal intubation, and morbidity and mortality rates. It is therefore recognized as the gold standard in this condition. High-flow nasal therapy helps improving ventilatory efficiency and reducing the work of breathing in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Early studies indicate that some patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure can be managed with high-flow nasal therapy, but more information is needed before specific recommendations for this therapy can be made. Therefore, high-flow nasal therapy use should be individualized in each particular situation and institution, taking into account resources, and local and personal experience with all respiratory support therapies.

Clinical Consensus Recommendations Regarding Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the Adult Patient with Acute Respiratory Failure Secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure. This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

[Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection]

La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) es una infección del tracto respiratorio causada por un nuevo coronavirus emergente que se reconoció por primera vez en Wuhan, China, en diciembre de 2019. Actualmente la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha definido la infección como pandemia y existe una situación de emergencia sanitaria y social para el manejo de esta nueva infección. Mientras que la mayoría de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollan solo una enfermedad leve o no complicada, aproximadamente el 14% desarrollan una enfermedad grave que requiere hospitalización y oxígeno, y el 5% pueden requerir ingreso en una unidad de cuidados intensivos. En casos severos, COVID-19 puede complicarse por el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA), sepsis y shock séptico y fracaso multiorgánico. Este documento de consenso se ha preparado sobre directrices basadas en evidencia desarrolladas por un panel multidisciplinario de profesionales médicos de cuatro sociedades científicas españolas (Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias [SEMICYUC], Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica [SEPAR], Sociedad Española de Urgencias y Emergencias [SEMES], Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor [SEDAR]) con experiencia en el manejo clínico de pacientes con COVID-19 y otras infecciones virales, incluido el SARS, así como en sepsis y SDRA. El documento proporciona recomendaciones clínicas para el soporte respiratorio no invasivo (ventilación no invasiva, oxigenoterapia de alto flujo con cánula nasal) en cualquier paciente con presentación sospechada o confirmada de COVID-19 con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda.

Esta guía de consenso debe servir como base para una atención optimizada y garantizar la mejor posibilidad de supervivencia, así como permitir una comparación fiable de las futuras intervenciones terapéuticas de investigación que formen parte de futuros estudios observacionales o de ensayos clínicos.

Clinical Consensus Recommendations Regarding Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the Adult Patient with Acute Respiratory Failure Secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) es una infección del tracto respiratorio causada por un nuevo coronavirus emergente que se reconoció por primera vez en Wuhan, China, en diciembre de 2019. Actualmente la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha definido la infección como pandemia y existe una situación de emergencia sanitaria y social para el manejo de esta nueva infección. Mientras que la mayoría de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollan solo una enfermedad leve o no complicada, aproximadamente el 14% desarrollan una enfermedad grave que requiere hospitalización y oxígeno, y el 5% pueden requerir ingreso en una Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos. En casos severos, COVID-19 puede complicarse por el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA), sepsis y shock séptico y fracaso multiorgánico. Este documento de consenso se ha preparado sobre directrices basadas en evidencia desarrolladas por un panel multidisciplinario de profesionales médicos de cuatro sociedades científicas españolas (Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias [SEMICYUC], Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica [SEPAR], Sociedad Española de Urgencias y Emergencias [SEMES], Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor [SEDAR]) con experiencia en el manejo clínico de pacientes con COVID-19 y otras infecciones virales, incluido el SARS, así como en sepsis y SDRA. El documento proporciona recomendaciones clínicas para el soporte respiratorio no invasivo (ventilación no invasiva, oxigenoterapia de alto flujo con cánula nasal) en cualquier paciente con presentación sospechada o confirmada de COVID-19 con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda.

Esta guía de consenso debe servir como base para una atención optimizada y garantizar la mejor posibilidad de supervivencia, así como permitir una comparación fiable de las futuras intervenciones terapéuticas de investigación que formen parte de futuros estudios observacionales o de ensayos clínicos.

Nasal High Flow Use in COPD Patients with Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: Treatment Algorithm & Review of the Literature

Nasal high flow (NHF) therapy has recently gained attention as a new respiratory support system and is increasingly being utilized in every day clinical practice. Recent studies suggest that it may also be effective in patients with hypercapnia and suggest NHF as a possible alternative for patients who cannot tolerate standard noninvasive ventilation. The present review discusses the mechanisms of action that make NHF potentially suitable for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and evaluates the current evidence of NHF use for treatment of stable hypercapnic COPD patients as well as acute hypercapnic exacerbation of COPD. An algorithm is also proposed for the clinical application of NHF in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of COPD, based on current literature.