Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Oxygen With Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Alone on Reintubation Among Patients at High Risk of Extubation Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen may prevent postextubation respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). The combination of high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be an optimal strategy of ventilation to avoid reintubation. Objective: To determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen with prophylactic NIV applied immediately after extubation could reduce the rate of reintubation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone, in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted from April 2017 to January 2018 among 641 patients at high risk of extubation failure (ie, older than 65 years or with an underlying cardiac or respiratory disease) at 30 ICUs in France; follow-up was until April 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to high-flow nasal oxygen alone (n = 306) or high-flow nasal oxygen alternating with NIV (n = 342) immediately after extubation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients reintubated at day 7; secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure at day 7, reintubation rates up until ICU discharge, and ICU mortality. Results: Among 648 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 70 [10] years; 219 women [34%]), 641 patients completed the trial. The reintubation rate at day 7 was 11.8% (95% CI, 8.4%-15.2%) (40/339) with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 18.2% (95% CI, 13.9%-22.6%) (55/302) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -6.4% [95% CI, -12.0% to -0.9%]; P = .02). Among the 11 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. The proportion of patients with postextubation respiratory failure at day 7 (21% vs 29%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -15.2% to -1.8%]; P = .01) and reintubation rates up until ICU discharge (12% vs 20%, difference -7.4% [95% CI, -13.2% to -1.8%]; P = .009) were significantly lower with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. ICU mortality rates were not significantly different: 6% with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 9% with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, -2.4% [95% CI, -6.7% to 1.7%]; P = .25). Conclusions and Relevance: In mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of extubation failure, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen with NIV immediately after extubation significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03121482.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy alone or with non-invasive ventilation during the weaning period after extubation in ICU: the prospective randomised controlled HIGH-WEAN protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Recent practice guidelines suggest applying non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to prevent postextubation respiratory failure in patients at high risk of extubation failure in intensive care unit (ICU). However, such prophylactic NIV has been only a conditional recommendation given the low certainty of evidence. Likewise, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been shown to reduce reintubation rates as compared with standard oxygen and to be as efficient as NIV in patients at high risk. Whereas HFNC may be considered as an optimal therapy during the postextubation period, HFNC associated with NIV could be an additional means of preventing postextubation respiratory failure. We are hypothesising that treatment associating NIV with HFNC between NIV sessions may be more effective than HFNC alone and may reduce the reintubation rate in patients at high risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFNC alone or with NIV sessions during the postextubation period in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU. Six hundred patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy of oxygenation after extubation. The primary outcome is the reintubation rate within the 7 days following planned extubation. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients who meet the criteria for moderate/severe respiratory failure, ICU length of stay and mortality up to day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03121482.

Epidural analgesia in the intensive care unit: An observational series of 121 patients.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia (EA) has been more investigated during the perioperative period than in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Recent studies support beneficial effects for EA beyond analgesia itself. However, data on feasibility and safety are still lacking in the ICU. Our goal was to assess the feasibility and practice of EA in ICU patients. METHODS: Multicentre observational study in 3 ICUs over a 10-month period. Goals were to report the incidence of EA-related complications and EA duration. All ICU patients receiving EA were included, whether EA was initiated in the ICU or elsewhere, e.g. in the operating room. Demographics, clinical and biological data were prospectively recorded. Epidural catheter tips were sent to the microbiology laboratory for culture. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one patients were included (mean age 60 years), with mean SOFA and median SAPS II scores of 3.2 and 32, respectively. Reasons for EA initiation included trauma (14%), postoperative pain management after major surgery (42%), and pancreatitis (31%). No EA-related neurologic complication was recorded, and one case of epidural abscess is discussed. No other EA-related infectious complications were observed. Median duration of EA was 11 days. Reasons for EA discontinuation included efficient analgesia without EA (60%) and accidental catheter removal (17%). 22% of epidural catheter cultures were positive for skin flora bacteria. CONCLUSION: EA seems feasible in the ICU. Its apparent safety should be further validated in larger cohorts, but these preliminary results may stimulate more interest in the assessment of potential benefits associated with EA in the ICU setting.