High-Flow Oxygen with Capping or Suctioning for Tracheostomy Decannulation.

BACKGROUND: When patients with a tracheostomy tube reach a stage in their care at which decannulation appears to be possible, it is common practice to cap the tracheostomy tube for 24 hours to see whether they can breathe on their own. Whether this approach to establishing patient readiness for decannulation leads to better outcomes than one based on the frequency of airway suctioning is unclear. METHODS: In five intensive care units (ICUs), we enrolled conscious, critically ill adults who had a tracheostomy tube; patients were eligible after weaning from mechanical ventilation. In this unblinded trial, patients were randomly assigned either to undergo a 24-hour capping trial plus intermittent high-flow oxygen therapy (control group) or to receive continuous high-flow oxygen therapy with frequency of suctioning being the indicator of readiness for decannulation (intervention group). The primary outcome was the time to decannulation, compared by means of the log-rank test. Secondary outcomes included decannulation failure, weaning failure, respiratory infections, sepsis, multiorgan failure, durations of stay in the ICU and hospital, and deaths in the ICU and hospital. RESULTS: The trial included 330 patients; the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 58.3±15.1 years, and 68.2% of the patients were men. A total of 161 patients were assigned to the control group and 169 to the intervention group. The time to decannulation was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 5 to 7] vs. 13 days [interquartile range, 11 to 14]; absolute difference, 7 days [95% confidence interval, 5 to 9]). The incidence of pneumonia and tracheobronchitis was lower, and the duration of stay in the hospital shorter, in the intervention group than in the control group. Other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Basing the decision to decannulate on suctioning frequency plus continuous high-flow oxygen therapy rather than on 24-hour capping trials plus intermittent high-flow oxygen therapy reduced the time to decannulation, with no evidence of a between-group difference in the incidence of decannulation failure. (REDECAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02512744.).

Effect of aggressive vs conservative screening and confirmatory test on time to extubation among patients at low or intermediate risk: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the best strategy to achieve fast and safe extubation. METHODS: This multicenter trial randomized patients with primary respiratory failure and low-to-intermediate risk for extubation failure with planned high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) preventive therapy. It included four groups: (1) conservative screening with ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥ 150 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≤ 8 cmH2O plus conservative spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with pressure support 5 cmH2O + PEEP 0 cmH2O); (2) screening with ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≥ 150 and PEEP ≤ 8 plus aggressive SBT with pressure support 8 + PEEP 5; (3) aggressive screening with PaO2/FiO2 > 180 and PEEP 10 maintained until the SBT with pressure support 8 + PEEP 5; (4) screening with PaO2/FiO2 > 180 and PEEP 10 maintained until the SBT with pressure support 5 + PEEP 0. Primary outcomes were time-to-extubation and simple weaning rate. Secondary outcomes included reintubation within 7 days after extubation. RESULTS: Randomization to the aggressive-aggressive group was discontinued at the interim analysis for safety reasons. Thus, 884 patients who underwent at least 1 SBT were analyzed (conservative-conservative group, n = 256; conservative-aggressive group, n = 267; aggressive-conservative group, n = 261; aggressive-aggressive, n = 100). Median time to extubation was lower in the groups with aggressive screening (p < 0.001). Simple weaning rates were 45.7%, 76.78% (205 patients), 71.65%, and 91% (p < 0.001), respectively. Reintubation rates did not differ significantly (p = 0.431). CONCLUSION: Among patients at low or intermediate risk for extubation failure with planned HFNC, combining aggressive screening with preventive PEEP and a conservative SBT reduced the time to extubation without increasing the reintubation rate.

[Clinical Consensus Recommendations Regarding Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the Adult Patient with Acute Respiratory Failure Secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection]. / Recomendaciones de consenso respecto al soporte respiratorio no invasivo en el paciente adulto con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda secundaria a infección por SARS-CoV-2.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

[Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection]. / Recomendaciones de consenso respecto al soporte respiratorio no invasivo en el paciente adulto con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda secundaria a infección por SARS-CoV-2.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure. This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

Tracheostomy in the COVID-19 era: global and multidisciplinary guidance.

Global health care is experiencing an unprecedented surge in the number of critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The requirement for relatively long periods of ventilation in those who survive means that many are considered for tracheostomy to free patients from ventilatory support and maximise scarce resources. COVID-19 provides unique challenges for tracheostomy care: health-care workers need to safely undertake tracheostomy procedures and manage patients afterwards, minimising risks of nosocomial transmission and compromises in the quality of care. Conflicting recommendations exist about case selection, the timing and performance of tracheostomy, and the subsequent management of patients. In response, we convened an international working group of individuals with relevant expertise in tracheostomy. We did a literature and internet search for reports of research pertaining to tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented by sources comprising statements and guidance on tracheostomy care. By synthesising early experiences from countries that have managed a surge in patient numbers, emerging virological data, and international, multidisciplinary expert opinion, we aim to provide consensus guidelines and recommendations on the conduct and management of tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.