Effectiveness and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the management of cardiogenic shock

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Cardiogenic shock (CS) has long been considered a contraindication for the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The main objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness, measured as NIV success, in patients with respiratory failure due to CS. As secondary objective, we studied risk factors for NIV failure and compared the outcome of patients treated with NIV versus invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

METHODS

Retrospective study on a prospective database, over a period of 25 years, of all consecutively patients admitted to an intensive care unit, with a diagnosis of CS and treated with NIV. A comparison was made between patients on NIV and patients on IMV using propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included, mean age 73.8 years, mean SAPS II 49. The main cause of CS was acute myocardial infarction (AMI): 164 (54.7%). NIV failure occurred in 153 (51%) cases. Independent factors for NIV failure included D/E stages of CS, AMI, NIV related complications, and being transferred from the ward. In the propensity analysis, hospital mortality (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09-2.63) and 1 year mortality (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04-2.51) was higher in IMV. Mortality was lower with NIV (vs. EIT-IMV) in C stage (10.1% vs. 32.9%; p<0.001) but did not differ in D stage or E stage.

CONCLUSIONS

NIV seems to be relatively effective and safe in the treatment of early-stage CS.

Analysis of combined non-invasive respiratory support in the first six waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome according to the first respiratory support

Introduction

COVID-19 can lead to acute respiratory failure (ARF) requiring admission to intensive care unit (ICU). This study analyzes COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, according to the initial respiratory support. Its main aim is to determine if the use of combination therapy: high-flow oxygen system with nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV), is effective and safe in the treatment of these patients.

Methods

Retrospective observational study with a prospective database. All COVID-19 patients, admitted to the ICU, between March 11, 2020, and February 12, 2022, and who required HFNC, NIV, or endotracheal intubation with invasive mechanical ventilation (ETI-IMV) were analyzed. HFNC failure was defined as therapeutic escalation to NIV, and NIV failure as the need for ETI-IMV or death in the ICU. The management of patients with non-invasive respiratory support included the use of combined therapy with different devices. The study period included the first six waves of the pandemic in Spain.

Results

424 patients were analyzed, of whom 12 (2.8%) received HFNC, 397 (93.7%) NIV and 15 (3.5%) ETI-IMV as first respiratory support. PaO2/FiO2 was 145 ± 30, 119 ± 26 and 117 ± 29 mmHg, respectively (p = 0.003). HFNC failed in 11 patients (91.7%), who then received NIV. Of the 408 patients treated with NIV, 353 (86.5%) received combination therapy with HFNC. In patients treated with NIV, there were 114 failures (27.9%). Only the value of SAPS II index (p = 0.001) and PaO2/FiO2 (p < 0.001) differed between the six analyzed waves, being the most altered values in the 3rd and 6th waves. Hospital mortality was 18.7%, not differing between the different waves (p = 0.713).

Conclusions

Severe COVID-19 ARF can be effectively and safely treated with NIV combined with HFNC. The clinical characteristics of the patients did not change between the different waves, only showing a slight increase in severity in the 3rd and 6th waves, with no difference in the outcome.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Concise Review on Technology and Initial Methodology

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNCOT) system consists of an air/oxygen supply system capable of delivering up to 100% humidified and heated oxygen at a flow rate of up to 80 L/min. The system includes a blender, active humidifier, single heated tube, and nasal cannula. HFNCOT has many physiological advantages compared with other standard oxygen therapies, such as anatomical dead space washout, more constant fraction of inspired oxygen, positive end-expiratory (PEEP) effect, supplement of adequate humidification and maintenance of muco-ciliary function. HFNCOT is mostly used for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure, although it also has other indications. HFNCOT is a common choice of physicians as its technology makes it more silent and comfortable. Though HFNCOT is used in many clinical settings, there is a lack of publications addressing devices and initial settings. We present a review on HFNCOT, with focus on device and application methodology.

Outcome of patients with acute heart failure secondary to acute myocardial infarction treated with noninvasive mechanical ventilation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation and mortality in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). However, patients with AHF secondary to acute coronary syndrome/acute myocardial infarction (ACS-AMI) have been excluded from many clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of NIV between patients with AHF triggered by ACS-AMI and by other etiologies.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of all patients with AHF treated with NIV admitted to the intensive care unit for a period of 20 years. Patients were divided according to whether they had ACS-AMI as the cause of the AHF episode. NIV failure was defined as the need for endotracheal intubation or death.

RESULTS

A total of 1009 patients were analyzed, 403 (40%) showed ACS-AMI and 606 (60%) other etiologies. NIV failure occurred in 61 (15.1%) in the ACS-AMI group and in 64 (10.6%) in the other group (P=.031), without differences in in-hospital mortality (16.6% and 14.9%, respectively; P=.478).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of ACS-AMI as the triggering cause of AHF did not influence patients with acute respiratory failure requiring noninvasive respiratory support.

Non-invasive ventilation in patients with an altered level of consciousness. A clinical review and practical insights

Non-invasive ventilation has gained an increasingly pivotal role in the treatment of acute hypoxemic and/or hypercapnic respira-tory failure and offers multiple advantages over invasive mechanical ventilation. Some of these advantages include the preserva-tion of airway defense mechanisms, a reduced need for sedation, and an avoidance of complications related to endotracheal intubation. Despite its advantages, non-invasive ventilation has some contraindications that include, among them, severe encephalopathy. In this review article, the rationale, evidence, and drawbacks of the use of noninvasive ventilation in the context of hypercapnic and non-hypercapnic patients with an altered level of consciousness are analyzed.

Validity of a clinical scale in predicting the failure of non-invasive ventilation in hypoxemic patients

INTRODUCTION

The HACOR scale is a clinical score that can predict early failure of NIV in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) The aim of this study is to analyze the validity of the HACOR scale.

METHODS

A retrospective study of a cohort of over 2749 episodes on 2711 consecutive patients requiring NIV for hypoxemic ARF in a polyvalent intensive care unit. The scale was measured before starting NIV and at 1, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after the initiation of NIV.

RESULTS

NIV failure occurred in 963 patients (35%). The value of the HACOR scale before NIV did not differ between success and failure. However, at 1, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h of NIV, the scale values clearly differed between the two groups. The HACOR scale at NIV initiation accurately predicts NIV failure in the first hour, with an optimal cut-off value of 8 points. The AUC for predicting NIV failure with HACOR at 1 h is greater than 0.9 in patients with pneumonia and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

CONCLUSIONS

The HACOR scale measured at 1 h after NIV initiation accurately predicts NIV failure, especially in pneumonia and ARDS.

Noninvasive ventilation usage time and survival rate in patients with acute respiratory failure: some key insights

One of the major causes of emergency admissions is acute respiratory failure (ARF) [1]. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used for ARF management because of its efficacy (particularly in hypercapnic patients), achievable goals and because it can be outside the intensive care unit [2]. The benefits of NIV are still under investigation in various hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF) aetiologies, such as asthma, pneumonia, immunosuppression and acute respiratory distress syndrome [1].

The possibility of avoiding adverse events by recommending early determination of mask-on proportions in the first 24 h of admission and, consequently, NIV failure in ARF patientshttps://bit.ly/2T0QYVN