Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus standard oxygen on mortality in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (SOHO).

INTRODUCTION: First-line oxygenation strategy in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure consists in standard oxygen or high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Clinical practice guidelines suggest the use of high-flow nasal oxygen rather than standard oxygen. However, findings remain contradictory with a low level of certainty. We hypothesise that compared with standard oxygen, high-flow nasal oxygen may reduce mortality in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The Standard Oxygen versus High-flow nasal Oxygen-trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing high-flow nasal oxygen versus standard oxygen in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) for acute respiratory failure with moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia. 1110 patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups with a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the number of patients who died 28 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include comfort, dyspnoea and oxygenation 1 hour after treatment initiation, the number of patients intubated at day 28, mortality in ICU, in hospital and until day 90, and complications during ICU stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the central Ethics Committee 'Sud Méditerranée III' (2020-07-05) and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04468126.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen vs Standard Oxygen Therapy on Mortality in Patients With Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: The SOHO-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial. Objective: To determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. Results: Among the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, -1.2% [95% CI, -5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, -7.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, -7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126.

Impact of prolonged requirement for insulin on 90-day mortality in critically ill patients without previous diabetic treatments: a post hoc analysis of the CONTROLING randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Stress hyperglycemia can persist during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and result in prolonged requirement for insulin (PRI). The impact of PRI on ICU patient outcomes is not known. We evaluated the relationship between PRI and Day 90 mortality in ICU patients without previous diabetic treatments. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the CONTROLING trial, involving 12 French ICUs. Patients in the personalized glucose control arm with an ICU length of stay ≥ 5 days and who had never previously received diabetic treatments (oral drugs or insulin) were included. Personalized blood glucose targets were estimated on their preadmission usual glycemia as estimated by their glycated A1c hemoglobin (HbA1C). PRI was defined by insulin requirement. The relationship between PRI on Day 5 and 90-day mortality was assessed by Cox survival models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Glycemic control was defined as at least one blood glucose value below the blood glucose target value on Day 5. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were included, of whom 62.4% were male, with a median age of 66 (54-76) years. Median values for SAPS II and HbA1C were 50 (37.5-64) and 5.7 (5.4-6.1)%, respectively. PRI was observed in 364/476 (72.5%) patients on Day 5. 90-day mortality was 23.1% in the whole cohort, 25.3% in the PRI group and 16.1% in the non-PRI group (p < 0.01). IPTW analysis showed that PRI on Day 5 was not associated with Day 90 mortality (IPTWHR = 1.22; CI 95% 0.84-1.75; p = 0.29), whereas PRI without glycemic control was associated with an increased risk of death at Day 90 (IPTWHR = 3.34; CI 95% 1.26-8.83; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In ICU patients without previous diabetic treatments, only PRI without glycemic control on Day 5 was associated with an increased risk of death. Additional studies are required to determine the factors contributing to these results.