Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Immunocompromised Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Incidence of noninvasive ventilation failure and mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and proportion meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is commonly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the incidence and distribution of treatment failure are unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive online search was conducted to select potentially eligible studies with reports of the rate of NIV failure in patients with ARDS. A manual search was also performed to identify additional studies. Data were extracted to calculate the pooled incidences of NIV failure and mortality. Based on oxygenation, the severity of the disease was classified as mild, moderate, or severe ARDS. Based on etiologies, ARDS was defined as being of pulmonary origin or extrapulmonary origin.

RESULTS

We enrolled 90 studies in this meta-analysis, involving 98 study arms. The pooled incidence of NIV failure was 48% (n = 5847, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 43-52%). The pooled incidence of ICU mortality was 29% (n = 2363, 95%CI: 22-36%), and that of hospital mortality was 33% (n = 2927, 95%CI: 27-40%). In patients with mild, moderate, and severe ARDS, the pooled incidence of NIV failure was 30% (n = 819, 95%CI: 21-39%), 51% (n = 1332, 95%CI: 43-60%), and 71% (n = 525, 95%CI: 62-79%), respectively. In patients with pulmonary ARDS, it was 45% (n = 2687, 95%CI: 39-51%). However, it was 30% (n = 802, 95%CI: 21-38%) in those with extrapulmonary ARDS. In patients with immunosuppression, the incidence of NIV failure was 62% (n = 806, 95%CI: 50-74%). However, it was 46% (n = 5041, 95%CI: 41-50%) in those without immunosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of patients with ARDS experience NIV failure. The incidence of NIV failure increases with increasing ARDS severity. Pulmonary ARDS seems to have a higher rate of NIV failure than extrapulmonary ARDS. ARDS patients with immunosuppression have the highest rate of NIV failure.

[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.

Noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The clinical benefits of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is still inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the effect of NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT)/high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in this patient population. We searched for relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINHAL, Web of Science up to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV with COT/HFNC in AHRF. The primary outcome was the tracheal intubation rate. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, and hospital mortality. We applied the GRADE approach to grade the strength of the evidence. Seventeen RCTs that recruited 1738 patients were included in our meta-analysis. When comparing NIV versus COT/HFNC, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the tracheal intubation rate was 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.89, p = 0.005, I² = 72.4%, low certainty of evidence. There were no significant differences in ICU mortality (pooled RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.26), p = 0.45, I² = 64.6%) and hospital mortality (pooled RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-1.00, p = 0.05, I² = 27.4%). Subgroup analysis revealed that NIV application with helmet was significantly associated with a lower intubation rate than NIV with face mask. NIV did not show a significant reduction in intubation rate compared to HFNC. In conclusion, NIV application in patients with medical illness and AHRF was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation compared to COT. NIV with helmet and HFNC are promising strategies to avoid tracheal intubation in this patient population and warrant further studies. NIV application had no effect on mortality.The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018087342).

The Impact of High-flow Nasal Cannula vs Other Oxygen Delivery Devices during Bronchoscopy under Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses

Background

The widespread diagnostic and therapeutic application of bronchoscopy is often associated with complications like desaturation. This systematic review and meta-analysis intend to scrutinize whether the high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is advantageous for providing respiratory support during bronchoscopic procedures under sedation, in comparison with other conventional modalities for oxygen therapy.

Materials and methods

A thorough screening of electronic databases was done till 31st December 2021 after obtaining registration in PROSPERO (CRD42021245420). Randomized controlled trials (RCT), evaluating the impact of HFNC and standard/any other oxygen-delivery devices during bronchoscopy were included in this meta-analysis.

Results

We retrieved in nine RCTs, with a total of 1306 patients, the application of HFNC during bronchoscopy led to decreased number of desaturation spells [relative risk (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.44, I ² = 23%], higher nadir value of SpO₂ [Mean difference (MD) 4.30, 95% CI 2.41-6.19, I ² = 96%], and improved PaO₂ from baseline (MD 21.77, 95% CI 2.8-40.74, I ² = 99%), along with similar PaCO₂ values (MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.82 to 1.13, I ² = 58%) just after the procedure. However, apart from desaturation spell, the findings are significantly heterogeneous. In subgroup analysis, HFNC had significantly lesser desaturation spells and better oxygenation than low-flow devices, but in comparison to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) had a lower nadir value of SpO₂ with no other significant difference.

Conclusion

High-flow nasal cannula led to greater oxygenation and prevented desaturation spells more effectively in comparison with low-flow devices like nasal cannula, venturi mask, etc., and may be considered as an alternative to NIV during bronchoscopy in certain high-risk patients.

How to cite this article

Roy A, Khanna P, Chowdhury SR, Haritha D, Sarkar S. The Impact of High-flow Nasal Cannula vs Other Oxygen Delivery Devices during Bronchoscopy under Sedation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(10):1131-1140.

On the Treatment of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia: Current Practice Based on Outdated Evidence

Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is a common opportunistic infection causing more than 400000 cases annually worldwide. Although antiretroviral therapy has reduced the burden of PCP in persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), an increasing proportion of cases occur in other immunocompromised populations. In this review, we synthesize the available randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence base for PCP treatment. We identified 14 RCTs that were conducted 25-35 years ago, principally in 40-year-old men with HIV. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, at a dose of 15-20 mg/kg per day, is the treatment of choice based on historical practice rather than on quality comparative, dose-finding studies. Treatment duration is similarly based on historical practice and is not evidence based. Corticosteroids have a demonstrated role in hypoxemic patients with HIV but have yet to be studied in RCTs as an adjunctive therapy in non-HIV populations. The echinocandins are potential synergistic treatments in need of further investigation.

[Management of Adult Community-Acquired Pneumonia and Prevention - Update 2021 - Guideline of the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the Paul-Ehrlich-Society for Chemotherapy (PEG), the German Society for Infectious Diseases (DGI), the German Society of Medical Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN), the German Viological Society (DGV), the Competence Network CAPNETZ, the German College of General Practitioneers and Family Physicians (DEGAM), the German Society for Geriatric Medicine (DGG), the German Palliative Society (DGP), the Austrian Society of Pneumology Society (ÖGP), the Austrian Society for Infectious and Tropical Diseases (ÖGIT), the Swiss Respiratory Society (SGP) and the Swiss Society for Infectious Diseases Society (SSI)]

The present guideline provides a new and updated concept of the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia. It replaces the previous guideline dating from 2016.The guideline was worked out and agreed on following the standards of methodology of a S3-guideline. This includes a systematic literature search and grading, a structured discussion of recommendations supported by the literature as well as the declaration and assessment of potential conflicts of interests.The guideline has a focus on specific clinical circumstances, an update on severity assessment, and includes recommendations for an individualized selection of antimicrobial treatment.The recommendations aim at the same time at a structured assessment of risk for adverse outcome as well as an early determination of treatment goals in order to reduce mortality in patients with curative treatment goal and to provide palliation for patients with treatment restrictions.

High flow nasal cannula in asthmatic children with suspected COVID-19

Abstract Introduction: The use of a high-flow nasal cannula as an alternative treatment for acute respiratory failure can reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and the duration of hospital stays. Objective: The present study aimed to describe the use of a high-flow nasal cannula in pediatric asthmatic patients with acute respiratory failure and suspected COVID-19. Methods: To carry out this research, data were collected from medical records, including three patients with asthma diagnoses. The variables studied were: personal data (name, age in months, sex, weight, and color), clinical data (physical examination, PRAM score, respiratory rate, heart rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation), diagnosis, history of the current disease, chest, and laboratory radiography (arterial blood gases and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction). Clinical data were compared before and after using a high-flow nasal cannula. Results: After the application of the therapy, a gradual improvement in heart, respiratory rate, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure score was observed. Conclusion: The simple and quick use of a high-flow nasal cannula in pediatric patients with asthma can be safe and efficient in improving their respiratory condition and reducing the need for intubation.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission

PURPOSE

We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.

SOURCE

Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

BACKGROUND

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

METHODS

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 (outside intensive care unit). A position paper of the Respiratory Support and Chronic Care Group of the French Society of Respiratory Diseases

With first cases noted towards the end of 2019 in China, COVID-19 infection was rapidly become a devastating pandemic. Even if most patients present with a mild to moderate form of the disease, the estimated prevalence of COVID-19-related severe acute respiratory failure (ARF) is 15–20% and 2–12% needed intubation and mechanical ventilation. In addition to mechanical ventilation some other techniques of respiratory support could be used in some forms of COVID-19 related ARF. This position paper of the Respiratory Support and Chronic Care Group of the French Society of Respiratory Diseases is intended to help respiratory clinicians involved in care of COVID-19 pandemic in the rational use of non-invasive techniques such as oxygen therapy, CPAP, non-invasive ventilation and high flow oxygen therapy in managing patients outside intensive care unit (ICU). The aims are: (1) to focus both on the place of each technique and in describing practical tips (types of devices and circuit assemblies) aimed to limit the risk of caregivers when using those techniques at high risk spreading of viral particles; (2) to propose a step-by-step strategy to manage ARF outside ICU.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Background

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed.

Methods

We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations.

Results

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.

Conclusion

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs

A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo- or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B. NIV IN ACUTE HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE: B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent air-borne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C. APPLICATION OF NIV: Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D. MANAGEMENT OF PATIENT ON NIV: D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E. EQUIPMENT: Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non–invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F. WEANING: Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B)

How to cite this article: Chawla R, Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Chaudhry D, Khilnani GC, Mehta Y, et al. ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S61–S81.