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.

Effect of postextubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a heterogeneous population at high-risk for extubation failure. However, outcomes might differ in certain subgroups of patients. Thus, we aimed to determine whether NIV with active humidification is superior to HFNC in preventing reintubation in patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (very high risk for extubation failure). METHODS: Randomized controlled trial in two intensive care units in Spain (June 2020‒June 2021). Patients ready for planned extubation with ≥ 4 of the following risk factors for reintubation were included: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 on extubation day, body mass index > 30, inadequate secretions management, difficult or prolonged weaning, ≥ 2 comorbidities, acute heart failure indicating mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or hypercapnia on finishing the spontaneous breathing trial. Patients were randomized to undergo NIV with active humidification or HFNC for 48 h after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate within 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis, multiorgan failure, length of stay, mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation. RESULTS: Of 182 patients (mean age, 60 [standard deviation (SD), 15] years; 117 [64%] men), 92 received NIV and 90 HFNC. Reintubation was required in 21 (23.3%) patients receiving NIV vs 35 (38.8%) of those receiving HFNC (difference -15.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.3 to -1%). Hospital length of stay was lower in those patients treated with NIV (20 [12‒36.7] days vs 26.5 [15‒45] days, difference 6.5 [95%CI 0.5-21.1]). No additional differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult critically ill patients at very high-risk for extubation failure, NIV with active humidification was superior to HFNC for preventing reintubation.

Benefit with preventive noninvasive ventilation in subgroups of patients at high-risk for reintubation: a post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was shown to be non-inferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a general population of high-risk patients. However, some subgroups of high-risk patients might benefit more from NIV. We aimed to determine whether the presence of many risk factors or overweight (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2) patients could have different response to any preventive therapy, NIV or HFNC in terms of reduced reintubation rate. METHODS: Not pre-specified post hoc analysis of a multicentre, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing NFNC and NIV to prevent reintubation in patients at risk for reintubation. The original study included patients with at least 1 risk factor for reintubation. RESULTS: Among 604 included in the original study, 148 had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. When adjusting for potential covariates, patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (208 patients) presented a higher risk for reintubation (OR 3.4 [95%CI 2.16-5.35]). Patients with ≥ 4 risk factors presented lower reintubation rates when treated with preventive NIV (23.9% vs 45.7%; P = 0.001). The multivariate analysis of overweight patients, adjusted for covariates, did not present a higher risk for reintubation (OR 1.37 [95%CI 0.82-2.29]). However, those overweight patients presented an increased risk for reintubation when treated with preventive HFNC (OR 2.47 [95%CI 1.18-5.15]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ≥ 4 risk factors for reintubation may benefit more from preventive NIV. Based on this result, HFNC may not be the optimal preventive therapy in overweight patients. Specific trials are needed to confirm these results.

Early Tracheostomy for Managing ICU Capacity During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health care systems during viral epidemics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU- and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (≤ 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation). RESULTS: Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (≤ 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 0-7 days]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy. INTERPRETATION: Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.

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.).

High-flow nasal cannula support therapy: new insights and improving performance.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2017. Other selected articles can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2017 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901 .

Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-flow conditioned oxygen therapy delivered through nasal cannulae and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) may reduce the need for reintubation. Among the advantages of high-flow oxygen therapy are comfort, availability, lower costs, and additional physiopathological mechanisms. Objective: To test if high-flow conditioned oxygen therapy is noninferior to NIV for preventing postextubation respiratory failure and reintubation in patients at high risk of reintubation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 3 intensive care units in Spain (September 2012-October 2014) including critically ill patients ready for planned extubation with at least 1 of the following high-risk factors for reintubation: older than 65 years; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score higher than 12 points on extubation day; body mass index higher than 30; inadequate secretions management; difficult or prolonged weaning; more than 1 comorbidity; heart failure as primary indication for mechanical ventilation; moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; airway patency problems; or prolonged mechanical ventilation. Interventions: Patients were randomized to undergo either high-flow conditioned oxygen therapy or NIV for 24 hours after extubation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure within 72 hours. Noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included respiratory infection, sepsis, and multiple organ failure, length of stay and mortality; adverse events; and time to reintubation. Results: Of 604 patients (mean age, 65 [SD, 16] years; 388 [64%] men), 314 received NIV and 290 high-flow oxygen. Sixty-six patients (22.8%) in the high-flow group vs 60 (19.1%) in the NIV group were reintubation (absolute difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -9.1% to ∞); 78 patients (26.9%) in the high-flow group vs 125 (39.8%) in the NIV group experienced postextubation respiratory failure (risk difference, 12.9%; 95% CI, 6.6% to ∞) [corrected]. Median time to reintubation did not significantly differ: 26.5 hours (IQR, 14-39 hours) in the high-flow group vs 21.5 hours (IQR, 10-47 hours) in the NIV group (absolute difference, -5 hours; 95% CI, -34 to 24 hours). Median postrandomization ICU length of stay was lower in the high-flow group, 3 days (IQR, 2-7) vs 4 days (IQR, 2-9; P=.048). Other secondary outcomes were similar in the 2 groups. Adverse effects requiring withdrawal of the therapy were observed in none of patients in the high-flow group vs 42.9% patients in the NIV group (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among high-risk adults who have undergone extubation, high-flow conditioned oxygen therapy was not inferior to NIV for preventing reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure. High-flow conditioned oxygen therapy may offer advantages for these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191489.

Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Studies of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients that combine populations that are at high and low risk for reintubation suggest that conditioned high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy after extubation improves oxygenation compared with conventional oxygen therapy. However, conclusive data about reintubation are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy for preventing reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients at low risk for reintubation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted between September 2012 and October 2014 in 7 intensive care units (ICUs) in Spain. Participants were 527 adult critical patients at low risk for reintubation who fulfilled criteria for planned extubation. Low risk for reintubation was defined as younger than 65 years; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score less than 12 on day of extubation; body mass index less than 30; adequate secretions management; simple weaning; 0 or 1 comorbidity; and absence of heart failure, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to undergo either high-flow or conventional oxygen therapy for 24 hours after extubation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was reintubation within 72 hours, compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis and multiorgan failure, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation. RESULTS: Of 527 patients (mean age, 51 years [range, 18-64]; 62% men), 264 received high-flow therapy and 263 conventional oxygen therapy. Reintubation within 72 hours was less common in the high-flow group (13 patients [4.9%] vs 32 [12.2%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 2.5% to 12.2%]; P = .004). Postextubation respiratory failure was less common in the high-flow group (22/264 patients [8.3%] vs 38/263 [14.4%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 0.7% to 11.6%]; P = .03). Time to reintubation was not significantly different between groups (19 hours [interquartile range, 12-28] in the high-flow group vs 15 hours [interquartile range, 9-31] in the conventional group; absolute difference, -4 [95% CI, -54 to 46]; P = .66]. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among extubated patients at low risk for reintubation, the use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen compared with conventional oxygen therapy reduced the risk of reintubation within 72 hours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191489.