Effect of noninvasive ventilation on mortality and clinical outcomes among patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia after high-flow nasal oxygen failure: a multicenter retrospective French cohort with propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effect of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on mortality and length of stay after high flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) failure among patients with severe hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) for severe COVID-19 pneumonia with a HFNO failure from December 2020 to January 2022. The primary outcome was to compare the 90-day mortality between patients who required a straight intubation after HFNO failure and patients who received NIV after HFNO failure. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounding factors between groups. Exploratory outcomes included a subgroup analysis for 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We included 461 patients with HFNO failure in the analysis, 233 patients in the straight intubation group and 228 in the NIV group. The 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between groups, 58/228 (25.4%) int the NIV group compared with 59/233 (25.3%) in the straight intubation group, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) after propensity score weighting of 0.82 [95%CI, 0.50-1.35] (p = 0.434). ICU length of stay was significantly shorter in the NIV group compared to the straight intubation group, 10.0 days [IQR, 7.0-19.8] versus 18.0 days [IQR,11.0-31.0] with a propensity score weighted HR of 1.77 [95%CI, 1.29-2.43] (p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in mortality rate for intubated patients in the NIV group with 56/122 (45.9%), compared to 59/233 (25.3%) for patients in the straight intubation group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In severely hypoxemic COVID-19 patients, no significant differences were observed on 90-day mortality between patients receiving straight intubation and those receiving NIV after HFNO failure. NIV strategy was associated with a significant reduction in ICU length of stay, despite an increase in mortality in the subgroup of patients finally intubated.

Dyspnea is severe and associated with a higher intubation rate in de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a key symptom of de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This study explores dyspnea and its association with intubation and mortality in this population. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Dyspnea was quantified by a visual analog scale (dyspnea-VAS) from zero to 100 mm. Dyspnea was measured in 259 of the 310 patients included. Factors associated with intubation were assessed with a competing risks model taking into account ICU discharge. The Cox model was used to evaluate factors associated with 90-day mortality. RESULTS: At baseline (randomization in the parent trial), median dyspnea-VAS was 46 (interquartile range, 16-65) mm and was ≥ 40 mm in 146 patients (56%). The intubation rate was 45%. Baseline variables independently associated with intubation were moderate (dyspnea-VAS 40-64 mm) and severe (dyspnea-VAS ≥ 65 mm) dyspnea at baseline (sHR 1.96 and 2.61, p = 0.023), systolic arterial pressure (sHR 2.56, p < 0.001), heart rate (sHR 1.94, p = 0.02) and PaO2/FiO2 (sHR 0.34, p = 0.028). 90-day mortality was 20%. The cumulative probability of survival was lower in patients with baseline dyspnea-VAS ≥ 40 mm (logrank test, p = 0.049). Variables independently associated with mortality were SAPS 2 ≥ 25 (p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe dyspnea at baseline (p = 0.073), PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.118), and treatment arm (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted to the ICU for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, dyspnea is associated with a higher risk of intubation and with a higher mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier # NCT01320384.

High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although cumulative studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, randomized trials to compare HFNC with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as initial treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure are limited. The aim of this randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial was to compare treatment failure rates between HFNC and NIV in such patients. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with AECOPD with a baseline arterial blood gas pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg admitted to two intensive care units (ICUs) at a large tertiary academic teaching hospital between March 2018 and December 2022 were randomly assigned to HFNC or NIV. The primary endpoint was the rate of treatment failure, defined as endotracheal intubation or a switch to the other study treatment modality. Secondary endpoints were rates of intubation or treatment change, blood gas values, vital signs at one, 12, and 48 h, 28-day mortality, as well as ICU and hospital lengths of stay. RESULTS: 225 total patients (113 in the HFNC group and 112 in the NIV group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The failure rate of the HFNC group was 25.7%, while the NIV group was 14.3%. The failure rate risk difference between the two groups was 11.38% (95% CI 0.25-21.20, P = 0.033), which was higher than the non-inferiority cut-off of 9%. In the per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in 28 of 110 patients (25.5%) in the HFNC group and 15 of 109 patients (13.8%) in the NIV group (risk difference, 11.69%; 95% CI 0.48-22.60). The intubation rate in the HFNC group was higher than in the NIV group (14.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.026). The treatment switch rate, ICU and hospital length of stay or 28-day mortality in the HFNC group were not statistically different from the NIV group (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: HFNC was not shown to be non-inferior to NIV and resulted in a higher incidence of treatment failure than NIV when used as the initial respiratory support for AECOPD patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: chictr.org (ChiCTR1800014553). Registered 21 January 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Effects of non-invasive respiratory support in post-operative patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Re-intubation secondary to post-extubation respiratory failure in post-operative patients is associated with increased patient morbidity and mortality. Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) alternative to conventional oxygen therapy (COT), i.e., high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and non-invasive ventilation (NIV), has been proposed to prevent or treat post-extubation respiratory failure. Aim of the present study is assessing the effects of NRS application, compared to COT, on the re-intubation rate (primary outcome), and time to re-intubation, incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, patient discomfort, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and mortality (secondary outcomes) in adult patients extubated after surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. A search from Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception until February 2, 2024 was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies (11,292 patients) were included. Among all NRS modalities, only NIV reduced the re-intubation rate, compared to COT (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.28; 0.87, p = 0.015, I2 = 60.5%, low certainty of evidence). In particular, this effect was observed in patients receiving NIV for treatment, while not for prevention, of post-extubation respiratory failure, and in patients at high, while not low, risk of post-extubation respiratory failure. NIV reduced the rate of nosocomial pneumonia, ICU length of stay, and ICU, hospital, and long-term mortality, while not worsening patient discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: In post-operative patients receiving NRS after extubation, NIV reduced the rate of re-intubation, compared to COT, when used for treatment of post-extubation respiratory failure and in patients at high risk of post-extubation respiratory failure.

Effectiveness of high flow nasal Cannula (HFNC) therapy compared to standard oxygen therapy (SOT) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in bronchiolitis.

High Flow Nasal Cannula therapy (HFNC) is a form of respiratory support for bronchiolitis. Recent evidence confirms HFNC reduces the risk of treatment escalation by nearly half (45%) compared to standard oxygen therapy (SOT), although most patients (75%) with mild-moderate respiratory distress manage well on SOT. The majority of children (60%) failing SOT respond well to HFNC making rescue use of HFNC a more cost-effective approach compared to its first-line use. HFNC is compared toCPAP in the setting of moderate to severe bronchiolitis. Patients on HFNC have a slightly elevated risk of treatment failure especially in severe bronchiolitis, but this does not translate to a significant difference in patient or healthcare centred outcomes. HFNC has improved tolerance, a lower complication rate and is more easily available in peripheral hospitals. It is therefore the preferred first line option followed by rescue CPAP. HFNC is clinically effective and safe to use in bronchiolitis of all severities.

High flow, low results: The limits of high flow nasal cannula in the treatment of bronchiolitis.

Bronchiolitis continues to be the most common cause of hospitalization in the first year of life. We continue to search for the remedy that will improve symptoms, shorten hospitalization and prevent worsening of disease. Although initially thought to be a promising therapy, large randomized controlled trials show us that high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use is not that remedy. These trials show no major differences in duration of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, duration of stay in the ICU, duration of oxygen therapy, intubation rates, heart rate, respiratory rate or comfort scores. Additionally, practices regarding initiation, flow rates and weaning continue to vary from institution to institution and there are currently no agreed upon indications for its use. This reveals the need for evidence based guidelines on HFNC use in bronchiolitis.

Effectiveness of preoxygenation strategies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preoxygenation is universally recommended before induction of general anaesthesia to prolong safe apnoea time. The optimal technique for preoxygenation is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to determine the preoxygenation technique associated with the greatest effectiveness in adult patients having general anaesthesia. METHODS: We searched six databases for randomised controlled trials of patients aged ≥16 yr, receiving general anaesthesia in any setting and comparing different preoxygenation techniques and methods. Our primary effectiveness outcome was safe apnoea time, and secondary outcomes included incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation; lowest SpO2 during airway management; time to end-tidal oxygen concentration of 90%; and [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] at the end of preoxygenation. We assessed the quality of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations. RESULTS: We included 52 studies of 3914 patients. High-flow nasal oxygen with patients in a head-up position was most likely to be associated with a prolonged safe apnoea time when compared with other strategies, with a mean difference (95% credible interval) of 291 (138-456) s and 203 (79-343) s compared with preoxygenation with a facemask in the supine and head-up positions, respectively. Subgroup analysis of studies without apnoeic oxygenation also showed high-flow nasal oxygen in the head-up position as the highest ranked technique, with a statistically significantly delayed mean difference (95% credible interval) safe apnoea time compared with facemask in supine and head-up positions of 222 (63-378) s and 139 (15-262) s, respectively. High-flow nasal oxygen was also the highest ranked technique for increased [Formula: see text] at the end of preoxygenation. However, the incidence of arterial desaturation was less likely to occur when a facemask with pressure support was used compared with other techniques, and [Formula: see text] was most likely to be lowest when preoxygenation took place with patients deep breathing in a supine position. CONCLUSIONS: Preoxygenation of adults before induction of general anaesthesia was most effective in terms of safe apnoea time when performed with high-flow nasal oxygen with patients in the head-up position in comparison with facemask alone. Also, high-flow nasal oxygen in the head-up position is likely to be the most effective technique to prolong safe apnoea time among those evaluated. Clinicians should consider this technique and patient position in routine practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42022326046.

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive methods of respiratory support, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), are potential strategies to prevent progression to requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to understand the utility of noninvasive respiratory support among a homogeneous cohort of patients with contemporary management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. We performed a network meta-analysis of studies evaluating the efficacy of NIV (including CPAP) and HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT), in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched in May 2023. Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used first to estimate all direct pairwise associations and the results from all studies were combined using frequentist network meta-analysis. Primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as discontinuation of HFNO, NIV, or COT despite progressive disease. Secondary outcome was mortality. RESULTS: We included data from eight RCTs with 2302 patients, (756 [33%] assigned to COT, 371 [16%] to NIV, and 1175 [51%] to HFNO). The odds of treatment failure were similar for NIV (P=0.33) and HFNO (P=0.25), and both were similar to that for COT (reference category). The odds of mortality were similar for all three treatments (odds ratio for NIV vs COT: 1.06 [0.46-2.44] and HFNO vs COT: 0.97 [0.57-1.65]). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and conventional oxygen therapy are comparable with regards to treatment failure and mortality in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023426495.

A two-tiered high-flow nasal cannula approach does not increase intensive care utilization and hospital length of stay in bronchiolitis.

While concerns about high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) overuse and associated increased use of hospital resources are rapidly spreading, a two-tiered approach in its use is recommended by recent bronchiolitis guidelines. However, data on its effects in practice have not been reported. We aimed to analyze the trends in use of HFNC, hospitalizations, length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for bronchiolitis in a tertiary care center using a two-tiered HFNC approach since its introduction in practice. We retrospectively included data of children < 12 months of age who presented to the Paediatric Emergency Department (PED) and were hospitalized for bronchiolitis at our institution in the epidemic season between October 1st and April 30th during the years 2012-2023 and compared the clinical data across the years. Of the 687 hospitalized children included, 79.9% required oxygen supplementation. Use of HFNC significantly increased since its implementation (from 25% in 2012-2013 to over 60% since 2019-2020, p < 0.0001) and was most frequently administered as rescue treatment (in 57.5% of patients). There was no increased trend in ICU admissions (between 1.5% and 10.0% of hospitalizations across seasons, p = 0.40), while LOS, after increasing between 2013 and 2016 (medians between 4.0 and 5.4 days), remained stable thereafter (medians between 3.8 and 4.3 days). CONCLUSIONS: The use of HFNC according to a two-tiered approach does not appear to be associated with an increase in ICU utilization or LOS. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Bronchiolitis is one of the most common reasons for hospitalization in infants. • Use high-flow nasal canulae oxygen (HFNC) has rapidly spread outside the intensive care unit (ICU) to treat infants with bronchiolitis, although increasing evidence has dampened the initial enthusiasm about their effectiveness. • Concerns nowadays are rising about HFNC overuse and associated increased use of hospital resources, including escalation of care to ICU. WHAT IS NEW: • A more selective use of HFNC according to a "two-tiered approach", intended as a second-line rescue treatment in non-severely ill children who fail standard oxygen therapy, is not associated with increased ICU and length of hospital stay.

High-flow nasal cannula use in pediatric patients for other indications than acute bronchiolitis-a scoping review of randomized controlled trials.

The objective of the study is to summarize current literature on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use for different indications in pediatric patient excluding acute bronchiolitis and neonatal care. The study design is a systematic scoping review. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in February, 2023. All abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Randomized controlled trials focusing on HFNC use in pediatric patients (age < 18 years) were included. Studies focusing on acute bronchiolitis and neonatal respiratory conditions were excluded. Study quality was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The main outcomes are patient groups and indications, key outcomes, and risk of bias. After screening 1276 abstracts, we included 22 full reports. Risk of bias was low in 11 and high in 5 studies. We identified three patient groups where HFNC has been studied: first, children requiring primary respiratory support for acute respiratory failure; second, perioperative use for either intraprocedural oxygenation or postoperative respiratory support; and third, post-extubation care in pediatric intensive care for other than postoperative patients. Clinical and laboratory parameters were assessed as key outcomes. None of the studies analyzed cost-effectiveness.Conclusion: This systematic scoping review provides an overview of current evidence for HFNC use in pediatric patients. Future studies should aim for better quality and include economic evaluation with cost-effectiveness analysis.Protocol registration: Protocol has been published https://osf.io/a3y46/ .

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Conventional Nasal Cannula in Preventing Hypoxemia in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy with Sedation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: We aimed to compare the prevention of hypoxemia using High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or regular nasal tubing (CNC) in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy with sedation. Methods: This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial conducted at a single center. We included elective patients aged 65 and above who were undergoing gastroscopy with sedation. In the intervention group (HFNO), we set the oxygen flow rate to 60 liters per minute with an oxygen fraction (FiO2) of 0.6, while in the control group (CNC), it was 6 liters per minute. The primary outcome was the occurrence of hypoxemia (defined as Spo2 < 90%). Results: A total of 125 participants were enrolled (HFNO group: n = 63; CNC group: n = 62). The occurrence of hypoxemia was found to be significantly lower in the HFNO group compared to the CNC group (3.2% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.001). Additionally, a significantly shorter duration of low oxygen levels was observed in the HFNO group [0.0 seconds (0.0-13.0)] compared to the CNC group [0.0 seconds (0.0-124.0), p<0.001]. Moreover, a higher minimum Spo2 value was achieved in the HFNO group [99.0% (98.0-100.0) vs. 96.5% (91.0-99.0), p < 0.001], and a shorter recovery time was recorded [0.5 minutes (0.0-0.5) vs. 0.5 minutes (0.0-1.0), p = 0.016] in comparison to the CNC group. There were no differences in terms of comfort level [0 (0-4) vs. 0 (0-5), p = 0.268] between the two groups. Conclusions: The HFNO system was determined to be a safe and highly effective method for oxygen delivery, leading to a reduction in the occurrence of hypoxemia in elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy with sedation. It is recommended that HFNO be considered as the standard approach for management in this population.

Continuous positive airway pressure versus high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The relative effectiveness of initial non-invasive respiratory strategies for acute respiratory failure using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of CPAP and HFNC on reducing the risk of meeting the prespecified criteria for intubation and improving clinical outcomes of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The primary endpoint was the time taken to meet the prespecified criteria for intubation within 28 days. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were randomly assigned to the CPAP or HFNC group. Eleven (28.9%) in the CPAP group and twenty (42.6%) in the HFNC group met the criteria for intubation within 28 days. Compared with HFNC, CPAP reduced the risk of meeting the intubation criteria (hazard ratio [HR], 0.327; 95% CI, 0.148-0.724; p = 0.006). There were no significant between-group differences in the intubation rates, in-hospital and 28-day mortality rates, ventilator-free days, duration of the need for respiratory support, or duration of hospitalization for respiratory illness. Pulmonary oxygenation was significantly better in the CPAP group, with significantly lower pH and higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide, but there were no differences in the respiratory rate between groups. CPAP and HFNC were associated with few possibly causal adverse events. CONCLUSION: CPAP is more effective than HFNC at reducing the risk of meeting the intubation criteria in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Enhancing exercise tolerance in interstitial lung disease with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy: A randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterized by dyspnoea on exertion and exercise-induced hypoxaemia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy reduces the respiratory workload through higher gas flow and oxygen supplementation, which may affect exercise tolerance. This study aimed to examine the effects of oxygen and gas flow rates through HFNC therapy on exercise tolerance in ILD patients. METHODS: We conducted three-treatment crossover study. All ILD patients performed the exercises on room air (ROOM AIR setting: flow, 0 L/min; fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2], 0.21), HFNC (FLOW setting: flow 40 L/min, FiO2 0.21), and HFNC with oxygen supplementation (FLOW + OXYGEN setting: flow 40 L/min, FiO2 0.6). The primary endpoint was the endurance time, measured using constant-load cycle ergometry exercise testing at a peak work rate of 80%. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants (10 men, 71.2 ± 6.7 years) were enrolled. The increase in exercise duration between the ROOM AIR and FLOW was 46.3 s (95% CI, -6.1 to 98.7; p = 0.083), and the FLOW and FLOW + OXYGEN was 91.5 s (39.1-143.9; p < 0.001). The percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2) at rest was significantly higher with the FLOW + OXYGEN setting than with the ROOM AIR and FLOW settings, and the difference persisted during exercise. At equivalent time points during exercise, the SpO2 with the FLOW setting was significantly higher than that with the ROOM AIR setting. CONCLUSION: Oxygen supplementation in HFNC therapy improved exercise tolerance and SpO2. We found that gas flow alone did not improve exercise tolerance, but improved SpO2 during exercise.

Pre-oxygenation using high-flow nasal oxygen versus tight facemask in trauma patients undergoing emergency anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from major traumatic injuries frequently require emergency anaesthesia. Due to often compromised physiology and the time-sensitive management, trauma patients may be more prone to desaturate during induction of anaesthesia. We hypothesised that pre-oxygenation using high-flow nasal oxygen would decrease the risk of desaturation during induction of anaesthesia in trauma patients and the study therefore aimed to compare the frequency of desaturation when pre-oxygenation was performed with high-flow nasal oxygen or a traditional facemask. METHODS: This exploratory, prospective, before-and-after study was conducted at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Adult (≥18 years of age) patients suffering major traumatic injuries needing emergency anaesthesia were included around the clock. Patients were pre-oxygenated using a tight-fitting facemask during the first nine months of enrollment. High-flow nasal oxygen was then introduced as a method for pre-oxygenation of trauma patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients desaturating <93% during induction of anaesthesia, assessed from the start of pre-oxygenation until one minute after intubation. Secondary outcomes included perceived difficulty of pre-oxygenation among anaesthetists (assessed on a scale between 1 and 10) and safety outcomes, such as incidence of regurgitations and intracranial gas (assessed radiologically). RESULTS: Data from 96 patients were analysed. Facemask pre-oxygenation was performed in 66 patients, while 30 patients were pre-oxygenated with high-flow nasal oxygen. The most frequent trauma mechanisms were stabbing injuries (n = 34 (35%)) and fall injuries (n = 21 (22%)). There were no differences in patient characteristics between the groups. Eight (12%) versus three (10%) patients desaturated <93% in the facemask and high-flow nasal oxygen group respectively, OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.20-3.28), p = .76. Anaesthetists assessed pre-oxygenation using high-flow nasal oxygen as easier compared to facemask pre-oxygenation. No patient in any group showed signs of regurgitation. Among patients with facial or skull fractures requiring anaesthesia before radiology was performed, intracranial gas was seen in four (40%) patients pre-oxygenated with a facemask and in no patient pre-oxygenated with HFNO (p = .23). CONCLUSION: In this prospective study investigating trauma patients undergoing emergency anaesthesia, we could not see any difference in the number of patients desaturating when pre-oxygenation was performed with high-flow nasal oxygen compared to a tight-fitting facemask. Pre-oxygenation using high-flow nasal oxygen was assessed as easier compared to facemask pre-oxygenation.

Failure Prediction of High-Flow Nasal Cannula at the Conventional Oxygen Therapy Phase in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has been increasing in the emergency department (ED). However, studies are lacking on the prediction of HFNC failure before therapy initiation in the ED. We investigated whether the existing indices, such as the ratio of pulse oximetry oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate (ROX) and ratio of ROX index to heart rate (ROX-HR), can accurately predict HFNC failure at the conventional oxygen therapy phase in the ED. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included patients treated with HFNC in the ED. The ROX and ROX-HR indices were calculated before initiating HFNC. An estimated fraction of inspired oxygen was used for conventional oxygen therapy. We plotted each index's receiver operating characteristics curve and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic capacity. The optimal cutoff values were assessed using the Youden index. The primary outcome was HFNC failure, defined as intubation in the ED. RESULTS: Among the 97 included patients, 25 (25.8%) failed HFNC therapy in the ED. The ROX and ROX-HR indices measured before initiating HFNC showed AUCs of 0.709 and 0.754, respectively. A ROX index of <5.614 and a ROX-HR index of <6.152 were associated with a high risk of intubation, even after correcting for confounding variables. CONCLUSION: The ROX and ROX-HR indices measured before initiating HFNC provide a relatively fair predictive value of HFNC failure in the ED.

Association of Noninvasive Respiratory Support with Extubation Outcomes in Brain-injured Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Secondary Analysis of the ENIO Prospective Observational Study.

Rationale: Noninvasive respiratory support using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) can decrease the risk of reintubation in patients being liberated from mechanical ventilation, but effects in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) are unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the association between postextubation noninvasive respiratory support and reintubation in patients with ABI being liberated from mechanical ventilation. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study of mechanically ventilated patients with ABI (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03400904). The primary endpoint was reintubation during ICU admission. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models with patient-level covariates and random intercepts for hospital and country to evaluate the association between prophylactic (i.e., planned) HFNC or NIPPV and reintubation. Measurements and Main Results: 1,115 patients were included from 62 hospitals and 19 countries, of whom 267 received HFNC or NIPPV following extubation (23.9%). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, neither prophylactic HFNC nor NIPPV was associated with decreased odds of reintubation (respectively, odds ratios of 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.73] and 0.63 [0.30-1.32]). Findings remained consistent in sensitivity analyses accounting for alternate adjustment procedures, missing data, shorter time frames of the primary endpoint, and competing risks precluding reintubation. In a Bayesian analysis using skeptical and data-driven priors, the probabilities of reduced reintubation ranged from 17% to 34% for HFNC and from 46% to 74% for NIPPV. Conclusions: In a large cohort of brain-injured patients undergoing liberation from mechanical ventilation, prophylactic use of HFNC and NIPPV were not associated with reintubation. Prospective trials are needed to confirm treatment effects in this population. Primary study registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03400904).

High- versus Low-Flow Extracorporeal Respiratory Support in Experimental Hypoxemic Acute Lung Injury.

Rationale: In the EOLIA (ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS) trial, oxygenation was similar between intervention and conventional groups, whereas [Formula: see text]e was reduced in the intervention group. Comparable reductions in ventilation intensity are theoretically possible with low-flow extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R), provided oxygenation remains acceptable. Objectives: To compare the effects of ECCO2R and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and hemodynamics in animal models of pulmonary (intratracheal hydrochloric acid) and extrapulmonary (intravenous oleic acid) lung injury. Methods: Twenty-four pigs with moderate to severe hypoxemia (PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 150 mm Hg) were randomized to ECMO (blood flow 50-60 ml/kg/min), ECCO2R (0.4 L/min), or mechanical ventilation alone. Measurements and Main Results: [Formula: see text]o2, [Formula: see text]co2, gas exchange, hemodynamics, and respiratory mechanics were measured and are presented as 24-hour averages. Oleic acid versus hydrochloric acid showed higher extravascular lung water (1,424 ± 419 vs. 574 ± 195 ml; P < 0.001), worse oxygenation (PaO2:FiO2 = 125 ± 14 vs. 151 ± 11 mm Hg; P < 0.001), but better respiratory mechanics (plateau pressure 27 ± 4 vs. 30 ± 3 cm H2O; P = 0.017). Both models led to acute severe pulmonary hypertension. In both models, ECMO (3.7 ± 0.5 L/min), compared with ECCO2R (0.4 L/min), increased mixed venous oxygen saturation and oxygenation, and improved hemodynamics (cardiac output = 6.0 ± 1.4 vs. 5.2 ± 1.4 L/min; P = 0.003). [Formula: see text]o2 and [Formula: see text]co2, irrespective of lung injury model, were lower during ECMO, resulting in lower PaCO2 and [Formula: see text]e but worse respiratory elastance compared with ECCO2R (64 ± 27 vs. 40 ± 8 cm H2O/L; P < 0.001). Conclusions: ECMO was associated with better oxygenation, lower [Formula: see text]o2, and better hemodynamics. ECCO2R may offer a potential alternative to ECMO, but there are concerns regarding its effects on hemodynamics and pulmonary hypertension.

The effect of high-flow nasal oxygen flow rate on gas exchange in apnoeic patients: a randomised controlled trial.

High-flow nasal oxygen can be administered at induction of anaesthesia for the purposes of pre-oxygenation and apnoeic oxygenation. This intervention is claimed to enhance carbon dioxide elimination during apnoea, but the extent to which this occurs remains poorly quantified. The optimal nasal oxygen flow rate for gas exchange is also unknown. In this study, 114 patients received pre-oxygenation with high-flow nasal oxygen at 50 l.min-1. At the onset of apnoea, patients were allocated randomly to receive one of three nasal oxygen flow rates: 0 l.min-1; 70 l.min-1; or 120 l.min-1. After 4 minutes of apnoea, all oxygen delivery was ceased, tracheal intubation was performed, and oxygen delivery was recommenced when SpO2 was 92%. Mean (SD) PaCO2 rise during the first minute of apnoea was 1.39 (0.39) kPa, 1.41 (0.29) kPa, and 1.26 (0.38) kPa in the 0 l.min-1, 70 l.min-1 and 120 l.min-1 groups, respectively; p = 0.16. During the second, third and fourth minutes of apnoea, mean (SD) rates of rise in PaCO2 were 0.34 (0.08) kPa.min-1, 0.36 (0.06) kPa.min-1 and 0.37 (0.07) kPa.min-1 in the 0 l.min-1, 70 l.min-1 and 120 l.min-1 groups, respectively; p = 0.17. After 4 minutes of apnoea, median (IQR [range]) arterial oxygen partial pressures in the 0 l.min-1, 70 l.min-1 and 120 l.min-1 groups were 24.5 (18.6-31.4 [12.3-48.3]) kPa; 36.6 (28.1-43.8 [9.8-56.9]) kPa; and 37.6 (26.5-45.4 [11.0-56.6]) kPa, respectively; p < 0.001. Median (IQR [range]) times to desaturate to 92% after the onset of apnoea in the 0 l.min-1, 70 l.min-1 and 120 l.min-1 groups, were 412 (347-509 [190-796]) s; 533 (467-641 [192-958]) s; and 531 (462-681 [326-1007]) s, respectively; p < 0.001. In conclusion, the rate of carbon dioxide accumulation in arterial blood did not differ significantly between apnoeic patients who received high-flow nasal oxygen and those who did not.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for mild-moderate acute respiratory failure in patients with blunt chest trauma: An exploratory descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining popularity for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of HFNC for hypoxemic ARF in patients with blunt chest trauma (BCT). METHODS: This retrospective analysis focused on BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF who were treated with either HFNC or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency medicine department from January 2021 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either invasive ventilation, or a switch to the other study treatment (NIV for patients in the NFNC group, and vice-versa). RESULTS: A total of 157 patients with BCT (72 in the HFNC group and 85 in the NIV group) were included in this study. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 11.1% and 16.5% in the NIV group - risk difference of 5.36% (95% CI, -5.94-16.10%; P = 0.366). The most common cause of failure in the HFNC group was aggravation of respiratory distress. While in the NIV group, the most common reason for failure was treatment intolerance. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (1.4% vs 9.4%, 95% CI 0.40-16.18; P = 0.039). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that chronic respiratory disease, abbreviated injury scale score (chest) (≥3), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (≥15), partial arterial oxygen tension /fraction of inspired oxygen (≤200) at 1 h of treatment and respiratory rate (≥32 /min) at 1 h of treatment were risk factors associated with HFNC failure. CONCLUSION: In BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF, the usage of HFNC did not lead to higher rate of treatment failure when compared to NIV. HFNC was found to offer better comfort and tolerance than NIV, suggesting it may be a promising new respiratory support therapy for BCT patients with mild-moderate ARF.

Respiratory rate­oxygenation (ROX) index for predicting high-flow nasal cannula failure in patients with and without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of the respiratory rate­oxygenation (ROX) index for a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with COVID-19 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) may differ from patients without COVID-19 with AHRF, but these patients have not yet been compared. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the ROX index for HFNC failure in patients with AHRF with and without COVID-19 during acute emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with AHRF treated with an HFNC in an ED between October 2020 and April 2022. The ROX index was calculated at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after HFNC placement. The primary outcome was the failure of the HFNC, which was defined as the need for subsequent intubation or death within 72 h. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate discriminative power of the ROX index for HFNC failure. RESULTS: Among 448 patients with AHRF treated with an HFNC in an ED, 78 (17.4%) patients were confirmed to have COVID-19. There was no significant difference in the HFNC failure rates between the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups (29.5% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.498). The median ROX index was higher in the non-COVID-19 group than in the COVID-19 group at all time points. The prognostic power of the ROX index for HFNC failure as evaluated by the area under the ROC curve was generally higher in the COVID-19 group (0.73-0.83) than the non-COVID-19 group (0.62-0.75). The timing of the highest prognostic value of the ROX index for HFNC failure was at 4 h for the non-COVID-19 group, whereas in the COVID-19 group, its performance remained consistent from 1 h to 6 h. The optimal cutoff values were 6.48 and 5.79 for the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ROX index had an acceptable discriminative power for predicting HFNC failure in patients with AHRF with and without COVID-19 in the ED. However, the higher ROX index thresholds than those in previous publications involving intensive care unit (ICU) patients suggest the need for careful monitoring and establishment of a new threshold for patients admitted outside the ICU.