Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy for Patients with Thoracoscopic Lobectomy after Extubation.
ABSTRACT: Objective. To investigate whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy for reducing hypoxemia and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) in patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy after extubation. Methods. Patients with intermediate to high risk for PPC were enrolled in this study. Subjects were randomly assigned to HFNC group (HFNCG) or conventional oxygen group (COG) following extubation. Arterial blood samples were collected after extubation at 1, 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72?h. Patients with postoperative hypoxemia and PPC were recorded. Adverse events were also documented. Results. Totally 110 patients were randomly assigned to HFNCG (n = 56) and COG (n = 54). The occurrence rate of hypoxemia in COG was twice more than that in HFNCG (29.62% versus 12.51%, P < 0.05) and PaO2, PaO2/FiO2, and SaO2/FiO2 were significantly improved in HFNCG (P < 0.05) in the first 72?h following extubation. Respiratory rate and incidence of reintubation as well as needing noninvasive ventilation were also decreased in HFNCG (P < 0.05), whereas the incidence of pneumonia and atelectasis were similar (P > 0.05). Adverse effects as throat and nasal pain occurred more frequently in COG. Conclusions. HFNC application improves oxygenation and reduces the risk of reintubation following thoracoscopic lobectomy but cannot decrease the incidence of PPC.
Project description:Respiratory support following postoperative extubation is of major importance to prevent hypoxemia and subsequent respiratory failure and reintubation. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) delivers a flow-dependent positive airway pressure and improves oxygenation by increasing end-expiratory lung volume. Whether application of HFNC may have therapeutic advantages over conventional oxygen therapy for respiratory support in the early postextubation surgical period remains to be established.The Optiflow for prevention of post-extubation hypoxemia after abdominal surgery (OPERA) trial is an investigator-initiated multicenter randomized controlled two-arm trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment, randomizing 220 patients with intermediate to high risk of pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery to receive HFNC or conventional oxygen therapy following extubation, stratified by the presence of epidural analgesia and center. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of patients with postoperative hypoxemia one hour after tracheal extubation. Secondary outcome measures are postoperative pulmonary complications, need for noninvasive ventilation and intubation for respiratory failure.The OPERA trial is the first randomized controlled study powered to investigate whether early application of HFNC following extubation after abdominal surgery prevents against postoperative hypoxemia and pulmonary complications.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01887015.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are modes of non-invasive respiratory support commonly used after extubation in extremely preterm infants. However, the cardiorespiratory physiology of these infants on each mode is unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>Prospective, randomized crossover study in infants with birth weight ?1250?g undergoing their first extubation attempt. NCPAP and HFNC were applied randomly for 45?min each, while ribcage and abdominal movements, electrocardiogram, oxygen saturation, and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO<sub>2</sub>) were recorded. Respiratory signals were analyzed using an automated method, and differences between NCPAP and HFNC features and changes in FiO<sub>2</sub> were analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 30 infants with median [interquartile range] gestational age of 27 weeks [25.7, 27.9] and birth weight of 930?g [780, 1090] were studied. Infants were extubated at 5 days [2, 13] of life with 973?g [880, 1170] and three failed (10%). No differences in cardiorespiratory behavior were noted, except for longer respiratory pauses (9.2?s [5.0, 11.5] vs. 7.3?s [4.6, 9.3]; p?=?0.04) and higher FiO<sub>2</sub> levels (p?=?0.02) during HFNC compared to NCPAP.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In extremely preterm infants studied shortly after extubation, the use of HFNC was associated with longer respiratory pauses and higher FiO<sub>2</sub> requirements.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Studies of mechanically ventilated patients with a low risk of reintubation have suggested that the use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy reduces the risk of reintubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the effect of HFNC following extubation in elderly patients with a high risk of reintubation remains unclear. METHODS:All consecutive medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients aged >65?years who were mechanically ventilated for >24?h were prospectively registered between July 2017 and June 2018. Control was obtained from a historical database of patients attending the same ICU from January 2012 to December 2013. A total of 152 patients who underwent HFNC after planned extubation according to institutional protocols (HFNC group) were compared with a propensity-matched historical control group who underwent COT (n?=?175, COT group). The primary outcome was the proportion of reintubated patients within 48?h after planned extubation. RESULTS:One hundred patients from the HFNC group and 129 patients from the COT group were matched by a propensity score that reflected the probability of receiving HFNC, and all variables were well matched. Post-extubation respiratory failure (41.0% versus 33.3%, p?=?0.291) and reintubation rate within 48?h (16.0% versus 11.6%, p?=?0.436) did not differ between the HFNC and COT groups. However, decreased levels of consciousness as a sign of post-extubation respiratory failure (27.0% versus 11.7%, p?=?0.007) were significantly increased in the HFNC group compared with the COT group. CONCLUSION:Among elderly patients who underwent planned extubation, HFNC was not associated with a decrease in the risk of reintubation. Further prospective study evaluating the clinical benefits of post-extubation HFNC in elderly patients is needed.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
Project description:BACKGROUND:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as an initial support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and after extubation. However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in clinical practice. We summarized the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on important outcomes including treatment failure and intubation/reintubation rates in adult patients with ARF and after extubation. METHODS:We searched 4 electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of HFNC with either COT or NIV on rates of 1) treatment failure and 2) intubation/reintubation in adult critically ill patients. RESULTS:We identified 18 RCTs (n?=?4251 patients) in pooled analyses. As a primary mode of support, HFNC treatment reduced the risk of treatment failure [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.98; p?=?0.04; I2?=?32%] but had no effect on preventing intubation (OR, 0.74; 95%CI 0.45-1.21; p?=?0.23; I2?=?0%) compared to COT. When used after extubation, HFNC (vs. COT) treatment significantly decreased reintubation rate (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.33-0.63; p <?0.00001; I2?=?30%) and extubation failure (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.25-0.73; p?=?0.002; I2?=?66%). Compared to NIV, HFNC significantly reduced intubation rate (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.36-0.92; p?=?0.02; I2?=?0%) when used as initial support, but did no favorably impact clinical outcomes post extubation in few trials. CONCLUSIONS:HFNC was superior to COT in reducing treatment failure when used as a primary support strategy and in reducing rates of extubation failure and reintubation when used after extubation. In few trials, HFNC reduced intubation rate compared to NIV when used as initial support but demonstrated no beneficial effects after extubation.
Project description:Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been widely applied in patients with high-risk extubation failure, including heart failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been demonstrated to benefit patients with heart failure by reducing cardiac preload. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFNC to NPPV for preventing extubation failure in patients with heart failure. This 3-year retrospective and single-center cohort study included patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who received prophylactic HFNC or NPPV after scheduled extubation from January 2015 to January 2018 from a medical center with four adult intensive care units. Demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis, and weaning status were collected. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 72 hours after extubation, which was defined as escalation to NPPV or reintubation in the HFNC group and was defined as requiring reintubation in the NPPV group. Secondary outcomes were reintubation within 72 hours, reintubation, duration of stay, and mortality during the intensive care unit and hospital stay. Of the 104 patients analyzed, characteristics of 58 patients in the HFNC group and 46 patients in the NPPV group were compared. The treatment failure within 72 hours in the two groups was not significantly different (25.9% vs 13%, p=0.106). Hypoxemic respiratory failure related treatment failure was significantly higher in the HFNC group. Prophylactic HFNC as first-line therapy had a comparable rate of reintubation within 72 hours to the prophylactic NPPV alone (17.2% vs 13%, p=0.556). Other secondary outcomes were similar between the two groups. Among patients with heart failure, HFNC was not inferior to NPPV for preventing extubation failure and reintubation. However, in case of an impending respiratory failure, selective patients may benefit from rescue NPPV.
Project description:Background:Use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduced postextubation respiratory failure (PERF) and reintubation rate compared to use of a low-flow oxygen system (LFOS) in low-risk patients. However, no obvious conclusion was reached for high-risk patients. Here, we sought to present the current status of HFNC use as adjunctive oxygen therapy in a clinical setting and to elucidate the nature of the protective effect following extubation. Methods:The medical records of 855 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit of single university hospital during a period of 5.5 years were analyzed retrospectively, with only 118 patients ultimately included in the present research. The baseline characteristics of these patients and the occurrence of PERF and reintubation along with physiologic changes were analyzed. Results:Eighty-four patients underwent HFNC, and the remaining 34 patients underwent conventional LFOS after extubation. Physicians preferred HFNC to LFOS in the face of high-risk features including old age, neurologic disease, moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a long duration of mechanical ventilation, low baseline arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, and a high baseline alveolar-arterial oxygen difference. The reintubation rate at 72 hours after extubation was not different (9.5% vs. 8.8%; P=1.000). Hypoxic respiratory failure was slightly higher in the nonreintubation group than in the reintubation group (31.9% vs. 6.7%; P=0.058). Regarding physiologic effects, heart rate was only stabilized after 24 hours of extubation in the HFNC group. Conclusions:No difference was found in the occurrence of PERF and reintubation between both groups. It is worth noting that similar PERF and reintubation ratios were shown in the HFNC group in those with certain exacerbating risk factors versus not. Caution is needed regarding delayed reintubation in the HFNC group.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Liberation and extubation are important for patients supported by mechanical ventilation. Extubation success is related to the duration of an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality rate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has physiological and clinical benefits in respiratory care. The present study compared clinical outcomes associated with HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) among patients at high risk for reintubation.<h4>Methods</h4>A single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted between March 2018 and June 2019. Sixty adults admitted to the ICU and who were at high-risk of reintubation and met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. "High risk" for reintubation was defined as having at least one of the following risk factors: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 points on extubation day, obesity, poor expectoration, airway patency problems, difficult or prolonged weaning, and more than one comorbidity. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included duration of ICU and hospital stay, mortality rate, and time to reintubation.<h4>Results</h4>Of 60 patients, 31 received HFNC and 29 received COT (mean age, 78 ± 7.8 vs. 76 ± 6.5 years, respectively). Reintubation rate within 72 hours did not differ between the groups (3 patients [9.7%] vs. 1 patient [3.4%], respectively). Reintubation time was shorter among patients who received COT than among patients who received HFNC (0.5 hour vs. 25 hours), but this difference was not statistically significant. Duration of ICU did not differ between the groups (14.7 ± 9.6 days vs. 13.8 ± 15.7 days, for HFNC and COT, respectively).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Among patients at high risk for reintubation, compared with COT, HFNC did not reduce the risk of reintubation within 72 hours.
Project description:The effects of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on adult patients after extubation remain controversial. We aimed to further determine the effectiveness of HFNC in comparison to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT).The Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) as well as the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) Web of Science were searched for all the controlled study comparing HFNC with NIPPV and COT in adult patients after extubation. The primary outcome was rate of reintubation and the secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and length of ICU stay (ICU LOS).Eight trials with a total of 2936 patients were pooled in our final studies. No significant heterogeneity was found in outcome measures. Compared with COT, HFNC was associated with lower rate of reintubation (Z?=?2.97, P?=?0.003), and the same result was found in the comparison between HFNC and NIPPV (Z?=?0.87, P?=?0.38). As for the ICU mortality and ICU LOS, we did not find any advantage of HFNC over COT or NIPPV.In patients after extubation, HFNC is a reliable alternative of NIPPV to reduce rate of reintubation compared with COT.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) possibly decrease tracheal reintubation rates better than conventional oxygen therapy (COT); however, few large-scale studies have compared HFNC and NPPV. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of three post-extubation respiratory support devices (HFNC, NPPV, and COT) in reducing the mortality and reintubation risk.<h4>Methods</h4>The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. COT, NPPV, and HFNC use were assessed in patients who were aged ≥ 16 years, underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for > 12 h for acute respiratory failure, and were scheduled for extubation after spontaneous breathing trials. The GRADE Working Group Approach was performed using a frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effect meta-analysis. Short-term mortality and reintubation and post-extubation respiratory failure rates were compared.<h4>Results</h4>After evaluating 4631 records, 15 studies and 2600 patients were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Although NPPV/HFNC use did not significantly lower the mortality risk (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.75 [0.53-1.06] and 0.92 [0.67-1.27]; low and moderate certainty, respectively), HFNC use significantly lowered the reintubation risk (0.54 [0.32-0.89]; high certainty) compared to COT use. The associations of mortality with NPPV and HFNC use with respect to either outcome did not differ significantly (short-term mortality and reintubation, relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.81 [0.61-1.08] and 1.02 [0.53-1.97]; moderate and very low certainty, respectively).<h4>Conclusion</h4>NPPV or HFNC use may not reduce the risk of short-term mortality; however, they may reduce the risk of endotracheal reintubation.<h4>Trial registration number and date of registration</h4>PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139112, 01/21/2020).
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>High-flow nasal oxygen cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients. However, their efficacy in post-extubated sepsis patients remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of HFNC vs. NIV to prevent reintubation in post-extubated sepsis patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial at the medical intensive care unit of Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Sepsis patients who had been intubated, recovered, and passed the spontaneous breathing trial were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HFNC or NIV support immediately after extubation. The primary outcome was rate of reintubation at 72 h after extubation.<h4>Results</h4>Between 1st October 2017 and 31st October 2019, 222 patients were enrolled and 112 were assigned to the HFNC group and 110 to the NIV group. Both groups were well matched in baseline characteristics. The median [IQR] age of the HFNC group was 66 [50-77] vs. 65.5 [54-77] years in the NIV group. The most common causes of intubation at admission were shock-related respiratory failure (57.1% vs. 55.5%) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (34.8% vs. 40.9%) in the HFNC and NIV groups, respectively. The duration of mechanical ventilation before extubation was 5 [3-8] days in the HFNC group vs. 5 [3-9] days in the NIV group. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome: 20/112 (17.9%) in the HFNC group required reintubation at 72 h compared to 20/110 (18.2%) in the NIV group [relative risk (RR) 0.99: 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.70-1.39); P = 0.95]. The 28-day mortality was not different: 8/112 (7.1%) with HFNC vs. 10/110 (9.1%) with NIV (RR 0.88: 95% CI (0.57-1.37); P = 0.59).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Among sepsis patients, there was no difference between HFNC and NIV in the prevention of reintubation at 72 h after extubation. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246893; Registered 11 August 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03246893?term=surat+tongyoo&draw=2&rank=3.