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.

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. 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. 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). 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. chictr.org (ChiCTR1800014553). Registered 21 January 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Tan D ，Wang B ，Cao P ，Wang Y ，Sun J ，Geng P ，Walline JH ，Wang Y ，Wang C ... -  《CRITICAL CARE》

Respiratory-rate Oxygenation index for Predicting Noninvasive Ventilation Associated With High-flow Nasal Cannula Failure in Acute Respiratory Failure Due to SARS-CoV-2.

Blakeley C ，Pons S ，Pardo E ，Baron E ，Claviéras N ，Battisti V ，Assefi M ，Constantin JM ... -  《-》

Weaning of non COPD patients at high-risk of extubation failure assessed by lung ultrasound: the WIN IN WEAN multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Postextubation respiratory failure (PRF) frequently complicates weaning from mechanical ventilation and may increase morbidity/mortality. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) may prevent PRF. Ventilated patients without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and at high-risk of PRF defined as a lung ultrasound score (LUS) ≥ 14 assessed during the spontaneous breathing trial, were included in a French-Chinese randomised controlled trial. PRF was defined by 2 among the following signs: SpO2 < 90%; Respiratory rate > 30 /min; hypercapnia; haemodynamic and/or neurological disturbances of respiratory origin. In the intervention group, prophylactic NIV alternating with HFNO was administered for 48 h following extubation. In the control group, conventional oxygen was used. Clinicians were informed on the LUS in the intervention group, those in the control group remained blind. The primary outcome was the incidence of PRF 48 h after extubation. Secondary outcomes were incidence of PRF and reintubation at day 7, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, length of ICU stay and mortality at day 28 and 90. Two hundred and forty patients were randomised and 227 analysed (intervention group = 128 and control group = 99). PRF at H48 was reduced in the intervention group compared to the control group: relative risk 0.52 (0.31 to 0.88), p = 0.01. The benefit persisted at day 7: relative risk 0.62 (0.44 to 0.96), p = 0.02. Weaning failure imposing reconnection to mechanical ventilation was not reduced. In patients who developed PRF and were treated by rescue NIV, reintubation was avoided in 44% of control patients and in 12% of intervention patients (p = 0.008). Other secondary outcomes were not different between groups. From a resource utilisation standpoint, prophylactic NIV alternating with HFNO was more demanding and costly than conventional oxygen with rescue NIV to achieve same clinical outcome. Compared to conventional oxygenation, prophylactic NIV alternating with HFNO significantly reduced postextubation respiratory failure but failed to reduce reintubation rate and mortality in patients without COPD at high risk of extubation failure. Prophylactic NIV alternating with HFNO was as efficient as recue NIV to treat postextubation respiratory failure.

Rouby JJ ，Perbet S ，Quenot JP ，Zhang M ，Andreu P ，Assefi M ，Gao Y ，Deransy R ，Lyu J ，Arbelot C ，An Y ，Monsel A ，Jing X ，Guerci P ，Qian C ，Malbouisson L ，Morand D ，Puybasset L ，Futier E ，Constantin JM ，Pereira B ，WIN IN WEAN Study Group ... -  《CRITICAL CARE》

Factors associated with the effectiveness of high-flow therapy in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: An observational study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely tested global health systems. Non-invasive respiratory support, especially combining high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure, has effectively treated COVID-19 induced Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and reduced mortality. However, HFNC alone is more comfortable, better tolerated, and less costly than non-invasive ventilation. Understanding which patients benefit from HFNC monotherapy versus combined therapies is essential. This observational study included patients admitted to the intermediate respiratory care unit of a COVID-19 hospital between December 2020 and September 2021. All patients treated with HFNC were included (n = 1301). HFNC failure was defined as the need for escalated therapy (non-invasive ventilation, intubation) or death. Epidemiological, clinical, non-invasive respiratory support parameters, and laboratory data were collected, and a multivariable analysis identified key determinants. HFNC was successful in 39.9 % of patients. (n = 511) Risk factors for HFNC failure included increased age, male gender, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, higher respiratory rate, initial SpO2/FiO2 ≤ 148, and initial PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 100. An increase in the ROX Index at 24 h and slower disease progression were associated with successful treatment. These findings led to the developmet of an index to identify patients who benefit most from HFNC monotherapy. HFNC monotherapy can be effective for a specific profile of patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure due to COVID-19. This tool may help manage these patients more appropriately. Further studies are needed to determine if these findings can be applied to Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure caused by other pathologies. This study underscores the importance of early identification and management of patients at risk of HFNC failure in intermediate respiratory care units. By recognizing factors such as age, comorbidities, and respiratory indices, healthcare providers can implement targeted strategies to enhance HFNC success. These strategies may include more stringent monitoring, tailored respiratory support, and timely escalation to more intensive therapies if needed. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive approach to managing severe respiratory failure in critical care settings, ultimately improving patient outcomes and reducing the burden on healthcare systems.

Zevallos-Villegas A ，Gonzalez-Rubio J ，Neria Serrano F ，Gallego-Rodriguez B ，Lorente-Gonzalez M ，Najera A ，Rafael Teran-Tinedo J ，Navarro-Lopez JD ，Jimenez-Diaz L ，Landete P ... -  《-》

Awake prone positioning effectiveness in moderate to severe COVID-19 a randomized controlled trial.

Awake prone positioning (APP) may be beneficial in patients with respiratory failure who are not receiving mechanical ventilation. Randomized controlled trials of APP have been performed during peak COVID-19 periods in unvaccinated populations, with limited data on compliance or patient acceptability. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of APP in a lower-middle income country in an open-label randomized controlled trial using a dedicated APP implementation team and wearable continuous-monitoring devices. The trial was performed at a tertiary level hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, recruiting adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen therapy via nasal/facemask systems or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Patients were allocated by a computer-generated random number sequence in a 1:1 ratio to standard care or APP, where a dedicated team provided bedside support. Wearable devices continuously recorded pulse oximetry and body position continuously. Our primary outcome was escalation of respiratory support within 28 days of randomization. Ninety-three patients were enrolled in this study between March 2022 and March 2023. Eighty (86%) patients had received ≥2 doses of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. The study was terminated early because of a reduction in the number of eligible patients. Data from 46 patients allocated to APP and 47 to standard care were available for analysis. At baseline, 19/47 (40%) patients allocated to the standard care group and 14/46 (30%) patients allocated to the APP group received HFNC. Continuous monitoring data were available for all patients monitored with wearable devices. Significantly greater mean daily APP times were achieved in those allocated to APP, however, most achieved less than the target 8 h/day. We did not detect clear differences in the primary outcome (relative risk,RR, 0.85, 95% CI 0.40-1.78, p=0.67) or secondary outcomes, including intubation rate and 28-day mortality. Patients reported prone positioning was comfortable, although almost all patients preferred supine positioning. No adverse events associated with the intervention were observed. APP was not associated with benefit, but there was no sign of harm. Continuous monitoring with wearable devices is both feasible and acceptable for patients. In our population, achieving prolonged APP time was challenging despite a dedicated support team, and patients preferred supine positioning. NCT05083130.

Phong NT ，Duc DH ，Hai HB ，Nguyen NT ，Khoa LDV ，Khanh LTT ，Tran LHB ，Linh NTM ，Van CTC ，Thao DP ，Trinh NTD ，Kieu PT ，Truong NT ，Hoang VT ，Ngoc NT ，Vien TTD ，Ly VT ，Khoa TD ，Beane A ，Anibal J ，OUCRU COVID RESEACH GROUP ，Thwaites GE ，Geskus R ，Clifton D ，Dung NTP ，Kestelyn E ，Glover G ，Tan LV ，Yen LM ，Tung NLN ，Dung NT ，Thwaites CL ... -  《-》