Nasal High-flow versus non-invasive ventilation in stable hypercapnic COPD: a preliminary report.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There are no data available about effectiveness of Nasal High-flow (NHF)in chronic respiratory insufficiency.Methods
Eleven COPD patients with stable hypercapnia were adjusted to NHF-system with a flow of 20 l/min. After six weeks patients were switched to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for another six weeks period.Results
NHF led to significant decreases in resting pCO2. Between the devices we found no differences in pCO2 levels.Conclusions
NHF may thus be an alternative treatment device in stable hypercapnic COPD patients.
SUBMITTER: Braunlich J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4559207 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Nasal High-flow versus non-invasive ventilation in stable hypercapnic COPD: a preliminary report.
Bräunlich Jens J Seyfarth Hans-Jürgen HJ Wirtz Hubert H
Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine 20150903 1
<h4>Background</h4>There are no data available about effectiveness of Nasal High-flow (NHF)in chronic respiratory insufficiency.<h4>Methods</h4>Eleven COPD patients with stable hypercapnia were adjusted to NHF-system with a flow of 20 l/min. After six weeks patients were switched to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for another six weeks period.<h4>Results</h4>NHF led to significant decreases in resting pCO2. Between the devices we found no differences in pCO2 levels.<h4>Conclusions</h4>NHF may thu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite the encouraging results of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients, it is also evident that some patients do not tolerate NIV or do not benefit from it. We conducted a study in which COPD patients with stable, chronic hypercapnia were treated with NIV and nasal high-flow (NHF) to compare effectiveness.MethodsIn a multi-centered, randomized, controlled, cross-over design, patients received 6 weeks of NHF ventilation followed by 6 weeks of NIV ventilation or vice-versa (TIBICO) between 2011 and 2016. COPD patients with stable daytime hypercapnia (pCO2≥50 mmHg) were recruited from 13 German centers. The primary endpoint was pCO2 changes from baseline blood gas, lung function, quality of life (QoL), the 6 min walking test, and duration of device use were secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 102 patients (mean±SD) age 65.3±9.3 years, 61% females, body mass index 23.1±4.8 kg/m2, 90% GOLD D, pCO2 56.5±5.4 mmHg were randomized. PCO2 levels decreased by 4.7% (n=94; full analysis set; 95% CI 1.8-7.5, P=0.002) using NHF and 7.1% (95% CI 4.1-10.1, P<0.001) from baseline using NIV (indistinguishable to intention-to-treat analysis). The difference of pCO2 changes between the two devices was -1.4 mmHg (95% CI -3.1-0.4, P=0.12). Both devices had positive impact on blood gases and respiratory scores (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Severe Respiratory Insufficiency Questionnaire).ConclusionsNHF may constitute an alternative to NIV in COPD patients with stable chronic hypercapnia, eg, those not tolerating or rejecting NIV with respect to pCO2 reduction and improvement in QoL.
| S-EPMC6615713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: The long-term effects of using a high-flow nasal cannula for chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remain unclear. Objectives: To assess whether long-term high-flow nasal cannula use reduces the number of exacerbations and improves other physiological parameters in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: We enrolled 104 participants (aged ⩾40 yr) with daytime hypercapnia (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages 2-4) receiving long-term oxygen therapy (⩾16 h/d for ⩾1 mo) and randomly assigned them to high-flow nasal cannula/long-term oxygen therapy and long-term oxygen therapy groups. The primary endpoint was the moderate or severe exacerbation rate. We compared changes from baseline in arterial blood gas values, peripheral oxygen saturation, pulmonary function, health-related quality-of-life scores, and the 6-minute-walk test. Measurements and Main Results: High-flow nasal cannula use significantly reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (unadjusted mean count 1.0 vs. 2.5, a ratio of the adjusted mean count between groups [95% confidence interval] of 2.85 [1.48-5.47]) and prolonged the duration without moderate or severe exacerbations. The median time to first moderate or severe exacerbation in the long-term oxygen therapy group was 25 (14.1-47.4) weeks; this was not reached in the high-flow nasal cannula/long-term oxygen therapy group. High-flow nasal cannula use significantly improved health-related quality of life scores, peripheral oxygen saturation, and specific pulmonary function parameters. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusions: A high-flow nasal cannula is a reasonable therapeutic option for patients with stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations. Clinical trial registered with www.umin/ac.jp (UMIN000028581) and www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03282019).
| S-EPMC9746854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula (HFNC) provides adequate oxygenation and can be an alternative to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of HFNC versus NIV in hypercapnic respiratory failure. Patients (n = 40) who were admitted to the Emergency Department of Alexandra Hospital due to hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO2 ? 45 mmHg) were randomized assigned into two groups, i.e., an intervention group (use of HFNC, n = 20) and a control group (use of NIV, n = 20). During their hospitalization in the Intensive Care Unit, vital signs (respiratory and heart rate, arterial blood pressure) and arterial blood gases (ABG) were closely monitored on admission, after 24 h and at discharge. No difference between the two groups regarding the duration of hospitalization and the use of HFNC or NIV was observed (p > 0.05). On admission, the two groups did not differ in terms of gender, age, body mass index, APACHE score, predicted death rate, heart rate, arterial blood pressure and arterial blood gases (p > 0.05). Respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (p = 0.023). At discharge, partial carbon dioxide arterial pressure (PaCO2) in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (50.8 ± 9.4 mmHg versus 59.6 ± 13.9 mmHg, p = 0.024). The lowerPaCO2 in the HFNC group than in the NIV group indicated that HFNC was superior to NIV in the management of hypercapnic respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC7459687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-pressure non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is a new strategy targeted at maximally reducing arterial carbon dioxide. However, high inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) might cause respiratory adverse events likely to diminish the benefit of NPPV. In the setting of ventilatory support, monitoring NPPV efficacy and resolving problems promptly are critical. This study assessed the treatment effect of high and low-pressure NPPV in chronic hypercapnic COPD using home ventilator with built-in software. In this pilot study, we investigated 34 patients using NPPV for 3 months. 13 patients used high-pressure ventilation and 21 patients used low-pressure ventilation. The primary outcome was daytime partial pressure of arterial blood carbon dioxide (PaCO2). There were no between-group differences in daytime PaCO2 and FEV1, but a trend favouring high-pressure NPPV was observed. Significant between-group differences were found in the transition dyspnoea index (TDI) (high-pressure, 1.69 ± 1.75, versus low-pressure, -0.04 ± 2.71, p = 0.044). No differences were found in usage time, leakage, health-related quality of life, spirometry, or 6-minute walk test. High-pressure NPPV with built-in software monitoring in patients with chronic hypercapnic COPD is associated with improvement in TDI scores and a positive trend in favour of high-pressure NPPV for improving PaCO2 is observed.
| S-EPMC5711850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive pressure ventilation is a first-line intervention for selected patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIV may reduce endotracheal intubation, death, and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), but its use is often limited by patient tolerance and treatment failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a potential alternative treatment in this patient population and may be better tolerated.Research questionFor patients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, is HFNC an effective alternative to NIV in reducing the need for intubation?MethodsWe searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane library from database inception through to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adults with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure assigned to receive HFNC or NIV. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess risk of bias. We calculated pooled relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included eight RCTs (n = 528) in the final analysis. The use of HFNC compared to NIV did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48-1.56, low certainty), or our secondary outcomes including endotracheal intubation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.39, low certainty), or hospital LOS (MD - 0.82 days, 95% CI - 1.83-0.20, high certainty). There was no difference in change in partial pressure of carbon dioxide between groups (MD - 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI - 5.34-1.60, moderate certainty).InterpretationThe current body of evidence is limited in determining whether HFNC may be either superior, inferior, or equivalent to NIV for patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure given imprecision and study heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to better understand the effect of HFNC on this population.
| S-EPMC9648030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) is indicated to treat respiratory acidosis due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent nonrandomized studies also demonstrated some physiological effects of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in COPD patients. We designed a prospective, unblinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to assess the noninferiority of HFNT compared to NIV with respect to the reduction of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in patients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis.MethodsWe will enroll adult patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, as defined by arterial pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg. Patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive NIV or HFNT. NIV will be applied through a mask with a dedicated ventilator in pressure support mode. Positive end-expiratory pressure will be set at 3-5 cmH2O with inspiratory support to obtain a tidal volume between 6 and 8 ml/kg of ideal body weight. HFNT will be initially set at a temperature of 37 °C and a flow of 60 L/min. At 2 and 6 h we will assess arterial blood gases, vital parameters, respiratory rate, treatment intolerance and failure, need for endotracheal intubation, time spent under mechanical ventilation (both invasive and NIV), intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Based on an α error of 5% and a β error of 80%, with a standard deviation for PaCO2 equal to 15 mmHg and a noninferiority limit of 10 mmHg, we computed a sample size of 56 patients. Considering potential drop-outs and nonparametric analysis, the final computed sample size was 80 patients (40 per group).DiscussionHFNT is more comfortable than NIV in COPD patients recovering from an episode of exacerbation. If HFNT would not be inferior to NIV, HFNT could be considered as an alternative to NIV to treat COPD patients with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03370666 . Registered on December 12, 2017.
| S-EPMC6647141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral randomized clinical trials have shown that non-invasive ventilation (NIV) applied immediately after extubation may prevent reintubation in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. However, most of studies included patients with chronic respiratory disorders as well as patients without underlying respiratory disease. To date, no study has shown decreased risk of reintubation with prophylactic NIV after extubation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesized that prophylactic NIV after extubation may decrease the risk of reintubation in COPD patients as compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of COPD patients included in a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing prophylactic use of NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone immediately after extubation.ResultsAmong the 651 patients included in the original study, 150 (23%) had underlying COPD including 86 patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 64 patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. The reintubation rate was 13% (11 out of 86 patients) with NIV and 27% (17 out of 64 patients) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference, - 14% (95% CI - 27% to - 1%); p = 0.03]. Whereas reintubation rates were significantly lower with NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone at 72 h and until ICU discharge, mortality in ICU did not differ between groups: 6% (5/86) with NIV vs. 9% (6/64) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference - 4% (95% CI - 14% to 5%); p = 0.40].ConclusionsIn COPD patients, prophylactic NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the trial registration number NCT03121482 (20 April 2017).
| S-EPMC7871306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nasal Highflow (NHF) delivers a humidified and heated airflow via nasal prongs. Current data provide evidence for efficacy of NHF in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Preliminary data suggest that NHF may decrease hypercapnia in hypercapnic respiratory failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanism of NHF mediated PCO2 reduction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS:In 36 hypercapnic COPD patients (PCO2 > 45 mmHg), hypercapnia was evaluated by capillary gas sampling 1 h after NHF breathing under four conditions A to D with different flow rates and different degrees of leakage (A = 20 L/min, low leakage, two prongs, both inside; B = 40 L/min, low leakage, two prongs, both inside; C = 40 L/min, high leakage, two prongs, one outside and open; D = 40 L/min, high leakage, two prongs, one outside and closed). Under identical conditions, mean airway pressure was measured in the hypopharynx of 10 COPD patients. RESULTS:Hypercapnia significantly decreased in all patients. In patients with capillary PCO2 > 55 mmHg (n = 26), PCO2 additionally decreased significantly by increased leakage and/or flow rate in comparison to lower leakage/ flow rate conditions (A = 94.2 ± 8.2%; B = 93.5 ± 4.4%; C = 90.5 ± 7.2%; D = 86.8 ± 3.8%). The highest mean airway pressure was observed in patients breathing under condition B (2.3 ± 1.6 mbar; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates effective PCO2 reduction with NHF therapy in stable hypercapnic COPD patients. This effect does not correlate with an increase in mean airway pressure but with increased leakage and airflow, indicating airway wash out and reduction of functional dead space as important mechanisms of NHF therapy. These results may be useful when considering NHF treatment in hypercapnic COPD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials: NCT02504814; First posted July 22, 2015.
| S-EPMC5784698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can lead to acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF), often treated using noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Emerging research suggests the potential utility of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for AHRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of HFNC versus NIV on AHRF management. A search of electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Complete), web sources, and trial registries was last conducted on 9 February 2023. Quality and risk of bias assessments were conducted. Meta-analyses were used to synthesise data. Seven randomised controlled trials were included. No statistically significant differences between HFNC and NIV were found within the following outcomes of interest: (i) correction of pCO2: standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.34 to 0.02), p = 0.08; (ii) correction of pH: SMD = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.14), p = 0.59; (iii) correction of pO2: SMD = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.09), p = 0.22; (iv) intubation rates: risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.82), p = 0.71; (v) mortality rates: RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.56), p = 0.61; and (vi) treatment switch: RR = 1.30, 95% CI (0.43 to 3.94), p = 0.64. More controlled trials with large sample sizes are required to investigate the management of AHRF of various aetiologies. HFNC may be used as a final exhaustive measure for COPD-related AHRF where NIV is not tolerated, and when it is not clinically indicated to extend to endotracheal intubation.
| S-EPMC10632084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) is used to treat acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, long-term outcomes following discharge are largely unknown. This study aimed to characterize long-term outcomes and identify associated markers in patients with COPD after surviving the first episode of HRF requiring NIV.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzed 122 patients, mean age 62 ± 8 years, 52% female and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) predicted 30 ± 13%, admitted with an acute hypercapnic exacerbation of COPD and receiving a first-ever NIV treatment between 2000 and 2012.ResultsA total of 40% of the patients required hospital readmission due to respiratory reasons within 1 year. Persistent hypercapnia leading to the prescription of domiciliary NIV, older age and lower body mass index (BMI) were risk factors for readmission due to respiratory reasons. Survival rates were 79% and 63% at 1 and 2 years after discharge, respectively. A shorter time to readmission and recurrent hypercapnic failure, lower BMI and acidemia on the first admission, as well as hypercapnia at hospital discharge were correlated with a decreased long-term survival.ConclusionPatients with COPD surviving their first episode of AHRF requiring NIV are at high risk for readmission and death. Severe respiratory acidosis, chronic respiratory failure and a lower BMI imply shorter long-term survival.
| S-EPMC6209011 | biostudies-literature