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).

Extubation in neurocritical care patients: the ENIO international prospective study.

PURPOSE: Neurocritical care patients receive prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but there is poor specific information in this high-risk population about the liberation strategies of invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: ENIO (NCT03400904) is an international, prospective observational study, in 73 intensive care units (ICUs) in 18 countries from 2018 to 2020. Neurocritical care patients with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 12, receiving IMV ≥ 24 h, undergoing extubation attempt or tracheostomy were included. The primary endpoint was extubation failure by day 5. An extubation success prediction score was created, with 2/3 of patients randomly allocated to the training cohort and 1/3 to the validation cohort. Secondary endpoints were the duration of IMV and in-ICU mortality. RESULTS: 1512 patients were included. Among the 1193 (78.9%) patients who underwent an extubation attempt, 231 (19.4%) failures were recorded. The score for successful extubation prediction retained 20 variables as independent predictors. The area under the curve (AUC) in the training cohort was 0.79 95% confidence interval (CI95) [0.71-0.87] and 0.71 CI95 [0.61-0.81] in the validation cohort. Patients with extubation failure displayed a longer IMV duration (14 [7-21] vs 6 [3-11] days) and a higher in-ICU mortality rate (8.7% vs 2.4%). Three hundred and nineteen (21.1%) patients underwent tracheostomy without extubation attempt. Patients with direct tracheostomy displayed a longer duration of IMV and higher in-ICU mortality than patients with an extubation attempt (success and failure). CONCLUSIONS: In neurocritical care patients, extubation failure is high and is associated with unfavourable outcomes. A score could predict extubation success in multiple settings. However, it will be mandatory to validate our findings in another prospective independent cohort.