Comparison of Postextubation Outcomes Associated with High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients at High Risk of Reintubation: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Predictive value of fluid balance before extubation on its outcome in mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Although there are many reasons for extubation failure, maintaining negative or lower positive fluid balances 24 hours before extubation may be a key measure for successful extubation.

AIM

To assess the predictive value of fluid balance before extubation and its outcome in mechanically ventilated cases in the intensive care unit (ICU).

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study involved collecting clinical data from patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in Lanzhou general adult ICU from January 2022 to December 2022. Based on extubation outcomes, the patients were divided into a successful extubation group and a failed extubation group. Their fluid balance levels 24 h before extubation were compared with analyse the predictive value of fluid balance on extubation outcomes in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

In this study, clinical data from 545 patients admitted to a general adult ICU were collected. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 265 (48.6%) patients were included, of which 197 (74.3%) were successfully extubated; extubation was unsuccessful in 68 (25.7%) patients. The total intake and fluid balance levels in patients in the failed extubation group 24 h before extubation were significantly higher than those in the successful extubation group, with a median of 2679.00 (2410.44-3193.50) mL versus 2435.40 (1805.04-2957.00) mL, 831.50 (26.25-1407.94) mL versus 346.00 (-163.00-941.50) mL. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the optimal cut-off value for predicting extubation outcomes was 497.5 mL (sensitivity 64.7%, specificity 59.4%) for fluid balance 24 h before extubation. The area under the ROC curve was 0.627 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.547-0.707). Based on the logistic regression model, cumulative fluid balance >497.5 mL 24 h before extubation could predict its outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU (OR = 5.591, 95% CI [2.402-13.015], p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The fluid balance level 24 h before extubation was correlated with the outcome of extubation in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. The risk of extubation failure was higher when the fluid balance level was >497.5 mL.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Tracheal intubation is a crucial life support technique for many critically ill patients, and determining the appropriate time for extubation remains a challenge for clinicians. Although there are many reasons for extubation failure, acute pulmonary oedema caused by continuous positive fluid balance and volume overload is one of the main reasons for extubation failure. Therefore, it is very important to study the relationship between fluid balance and extubation outcome to improve the prognosis of patients with invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU.

Asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula performs similarly to standard interface in patients with acute hypoxemic post-extubation respiratory failure: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Standard high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support device widely used to manage post-extubation hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) due to greater comfort, oxygenation, alveolar recruitment, humidification, and reduction of dead space, as compared to conventional oxygen therapy. On the contrary, the effects of the new asymmetrical HFNC interface (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) is still under discussion. Our aim is investigating whether the use of asymmetrical HFNC interface presents any relevant difference, compared with the standard configuration, on lung aeration (as assessed by end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) measured by electrical impedance tomography (EIT)), diaphragm ultrasound thickening fraction (TFdi) and excursion (DE), ventilatory efficiency (estimated by corrected minute ventilation (MV)), gas exchange, dyspnea, and comfort.

METHODS

Pilot physiological crossover randomized controlled study enrolling 20 adults admitted to the Intensive Care unit, invasively ventilated for at least 24 h, and developing post-extubation hARF, i.e., PaO2/set FiO2 < 300 mmHg during Venturi mask (VM) within 120 min after extubation. Each HFNC configuration was applied in a randomized 60 min sequence at a flow rate of 60 L/min.

RESULTS

Global EELI, TFdi, DE, ventilatory efficiency, gas exchange and dyspnea were not significantly different, while comfort was greater during asymmetrical HFNC support, as compared to standard interface (10 [7-10] and 8 [7-9], p-value 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

In post-extubation hARF, the use of the asymmetrical HFNC, as compared to standard HFNC interface, slightly improved patient comfort without affecting lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea and gas exchange.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

ClinicalTrial.gov.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05838326 (01/05/2023).

NEW & NOTEWORTHY

The asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) provides greater comfort as compared to standard interface; while their performance in term of lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea, and gas exchange is similar.

Noninvasive respiratory support after extubation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), including high-flow nasal oxygen, bi-level positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure (noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), for preventing and treating post-extubation respiratory failure is still unclear. Our objective was to assess the effects of NRS on post-extubation respiratory failure, defined as re-intubation secondary to post-extubation respiratory failure (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), discomfort, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and time to re-intubation. Subgroup analyses considered "prophylactic" versus "therapeutic" NRS application and subpopulations (high-risk, low-risk, post-surgical and hypoxaemic patients).

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (Research Registry: reviewregistry1435). PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science were searched (from inception until 22 June 2022). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of NRS after extubation in ICU adult patients were included.

RESULTS

32 RCTs entered the quantitative analysis (5063 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, NRS overall reduced re-intubations and VAP (moderate certainty). NIV decreased hospital mortality (moderate certainty), and hospital and ICU LOS (low and very low certainty, respectively), and increased discomfort (moderate certainty). Prophylactic NRS did not prevent extubation failure in low-risk or hypoxaemic patients.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic NRS may reduce the rate of post-extubation respiratory failure in ICU patients.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula as an Alternate Weaning Strategy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Extubation failure is associated with increased morbidity and poor outcomes. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as a weaning method compared to conventional weaning. Methodology A total of 60 mechanically ventilated patients, aged 18-65 years, who were ventilated for 48 hours and whose underlying pathology had either resolved or was improving, were enrolled in this study. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to participate in the HFNC weaning method or receive conventional weaning. Patients in Group A were extubated and oxygen was provided via HFNC. Group B patients were given a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) per the standard protocol and extubated after a successful SBT. Results Weaning failure was found in five patients and was higher in the conventional group (three patients in the conventional group and two patients in the HFNC group). The duration of stay of patients in intensive care units was significantly higher in the conventional group than in the HFNC group. Conclusions HFNC is a better alternative to conventional weaning through SBT.

Does High Flow Nasal Cannula avoid intubation and improve the mortality of adult patients in acute respiratory failure in the intensive care setting, when compared to others methods as Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Non-Invasive Ventilation? A narrative review

High-flow oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (HFNC) has been used for many years to oxygenate patients in respiratory failure. However, scientific data in literature are divergent about its value to prevent invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. The use of HFNC has increased following the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review considers the impact of HFNC on intubation rates and mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). HFNC would decrease the use of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to COT and would be equivalent to NIV. Combination of NIV and HFNC would have a benefit compared to NIV alone. Some etiologies of respiratory failure would benefit more from this technique as post-extubation critical ill patient or COVID-19 pneumonia. HFNC seems to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to NIV.

Efficacy of preventive use of oxygen therapy after planned extubation in high-risk patients with extubation failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Extubation failure is common in critically ill patients, especially those with high-risk factors, and is associated with poor prognosis. Prophylactic use of oxygen therapy after extubation has been gradually introduced. However, the best respiratory support method is still unclear.

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of four post-extubation respiratory support approaches in reducing reintubation and respiratory failure in patients at high-risk of extubation failure.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing post-extubation preventive use of respiratory management strategies, including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and high-flow nasal catheter (HFNC) in high-risk patients with extubation failure were reviewed. Primary outcomes were reintubation rate and respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU stay and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Results

Seventeen RCTs comprising 2813 participants were enrolled. Compared with COT, the three respiratory support methods (NIV, HFNC, NIV + HFNC) were all effective in preventing reintubation [odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.67; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14–0.48; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.97, respectively] and respiratory failure (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10–0.52; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04–0.60; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10–0.72, respectively). NIV and NIV + HFNC also reduced ICU mortality (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.74; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12–0.85). NIV + HFNC ranked best in terms of reintubation rate, respiratory failure and ICU mortality based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) (99.3, 87.1, 88.2, respectively). Although there was no significant difference in shortening ICU stay and LOS among the four methods, HFNC ranked first based on the SUCRA.

Conclusion

Preventive use of NIV + HFNC after scheduled extubation is probably the most effective respiratory support method for preventing reintubation, respiratory failure and ICU death in high-risk patients with extubation failure. HFNC alone seems to be the best method to shorten ICU stay and LOS.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022340623].

Noninvasive respiratory support following extubation in critically ill adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in reducing extubation failure among critically ill adults.

METHODS

We searched databases from inception through October 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating noninvasive respiratory support therapies (NIPPV, HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy, or a combination of these) following extubation in critically ill adults. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of our findings.

RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs (6806 patients). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIPPV (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82]) and HFNC (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87]) reduced reintubation (both moderate certainty). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effect was highest in patients with increased baseline risk of reintubation. As compared to HFNC, no difference in incidence of reintubation was seen with NIPPV (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38], low certainty). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, neither NIPPV (OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04], moderate certainty) or HFNC (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24], low certainty) reduced short-term mortality. Consistent findings were demonstrated across multiple subgroups, including high- and low-risk patients. These results were replicated when evaluating noninvasive strategies for prevention (prophylaxis), but not in rescue (application only after evidence of deterioration) situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both NIPPV and HFNC reduced reintubation in critically ill adults, compared to conventional oxygen therapy. NIPPV did not reduce incidence of reintubation when compared to HFNC. These findings support the preventative application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies to mitigate extubation failure in critically ill adults, but not in rescue conditions.

ERS Clinical Practice Guidelines: High-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used non-invasive form of respiratory support in acute settings, however evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The European Respiratory Society Task Force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The Task Force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methods to summarize evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF.

RESULTS

The Task Force developed 8 conditional recommendations, suggesting using: 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxemic ARF, 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxemic ARF, 3)HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV, 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications, 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications, 6) HFNC over COT in non-surgical patients at low risk of extubation failure, 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV, 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic ARF.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of non-invasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased.

PURPOSE

To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k = 11) or COT (k = 21).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized.

CONCLUSION

Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

Appropriate Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Hospitalized Patients for Initial or Postextubation Management of Acute Respiratory Failure: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure. It is based on the best available evidence on the benefits and harms of HFNO, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of HFNO. The patient-centered health outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day hospital readmissions, hospital-acquired pneumonia, days of intubation or reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU transfers, patient comfort, dyspnea, delirium, barotrauma, compromised nutrition, gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge, discharge disposition, and skin breakdown. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated in a hospital setting (including emergency departments, hospital wards, intermediate or step-down units, and ICUs).

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than noninvasive ventilation in hospitalized adults for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than conventional oxygen therapy for hospitalized adults with postextubation acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Post-extubation oxygenation strategies in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

NPPV or HFNC use may not reduce the risk of short-term mortality; however, they may reduce the risk of endotracheal reintubation.

Trial registration number and date of registration

PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139112, 01/21/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03550-4.