High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients after extubation: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial

Dingyu Tan, Joseph Harold Walline, Bingyu Ling, Yan Xu, Jiayan Sun, Bingxia Wang, Xueqin Shan, Yunyun Wang, Peng Cao, Qingcheng Zhu, Ping Geng, Jun Xu, Dingyu Tan, Joseph Harold Walline, Bingyu Ling, Yan Xu, Jiayan Sun, Bingxia Wang, Xueqin Shan, Yunyun Wang, Peng Cao, Qingcheng Zhu, Ping Geng, Jun Xu

Abstract

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is being increasingly used to prevent post-extubation hypoxemic respiratory failure and reintubation. However, evidence to support the use of HFNC in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure after extubation is limited. This study was conducted to test if HFNC is non-inferior to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing post-extubation treatment failure in COPD patients previously intubated for hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Methods: COPD patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure who were already receiving invasive ventilation were randomized to HFNC or NIV at extubation at two large tertiary academic teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either resumption of invasive ventilation or switching to the other study treatment modality (NIV for patients in the NFNC group or vice versa).

Results: Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group or NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 44 patients in the HFNC group and 42 patients in the NIV group were included in the analysis. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.7% and 28.6% in the NIV group-risk difference of - 5.8% (95% CI, - 23.8-12.4%, p = 0.535), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior margin of 9%. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure showed that treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group, with a risk difference of - 50.0% (95% CI, - 74.6 to - 12.9%, p = 0.015). One hour after extubation, the mean respiratory rates of both groups were faster than their baseline levels before extubation (p < 0.050). Twenty-four hours after extubation, the respiratory rate of the HFNC group had returned to baseline, but the NIV group was still higher than the baseline. Forty-eight hours after extubation, the respiratory rates of both groups were not significantly different from the baseline. The average number of daily airway care interventions in the NIV group was 7 (5-9.3), which was significantly higher than 6 (4-7) times in the HFNC group (p = 0.006). The comfort score and incidence of nasal and facial skin breakdown of the HFNC group was also significantly better than that of the NIV group [7 (6-8) vs 5 (4-7), P < 0.001] and [0 vs 9.6%, p = 0.027], respectively.

Conclusion: Among COPD patients with severe hypercapnic respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation, the use of HFNC after extubation did not result in increased rates of treatment failure compared with NIV. HFNC also had better tolerance and comfort than NIV.

Trial registration: chictr.org ( ChiCTR1800018530 ). Registered on 22 September 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn/usercenter.aspx.

Keywords: Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases; High-flow nasal cannula; Hypercapnia; Non-invasive ventilation; Pulmonary infection control window; Respiratory failure.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of patient enrollment. COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ICU, intensive care unit; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy; NIV, non-invasive ventilation; PIC, pulmonary infection control
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan-Meier curve analysis for cumulative failure rate. HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy; NIV, non-invasive ventilation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Kaplan-Meier curve analysis for cumulative survival rate. HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy; NIV, non-invasive ventilation

References

    1. Boles JM, Bion J, Connors A, Herridge M, Marsh B, Melot C, Pearl R, Silverman H, Stanchina M, Vieillard-Baron A, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J. 2007;29(5):1033–1056. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00010206.
    1. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Griffith L, Keenan SP, Brun-Buisson C. The attributable morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. The Canadian Critical Trials Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(4 Pt 1):1249–1256. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.4.9807050.
    1. Li PJ, Wang T, Xiao J, Jiang FM, Luo J, Shi CL, Liu GJ, Liang ZA. Efficacy of two noninvasive weaning strategies in intubated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison. Heart Lung. 2016;45(2):132–139. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.12.008.
    1. Lv Y, Lv Q, Lv Q, Lai T. Pulmonary infection control window as a switching point for sequential ventilation in the treatment of COPD patients: a meta-analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1255–1267. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S126736.
    1. Arnal JM, Texereau J, Garnero A. Practical insight to monitor home NIV in COPD patients. Copd. 2017;14(4):401–410. doi: 10.1080/15412555.2017.1298583.
    1. Nava S, Ceriana P. Causes of failure of noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Respir Care. 2004;49(3):295–303.
    1. Esteban A, Ferguson ND, Meade MO, Frutos-Vivar F, Apezteguia C, Brochard L, Raymondos K, Nin N, Hurtado J, Tomicic V, et al. Evolution of mechanical ventilation in response to clinical research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(2):170–177. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200706-893OC.
    1. Gay PC. Complications of noninvasive ventilation in acute care. Respir Care. 2009;54(2):246–257.
    1. Jolliet P, Ouanes-Besbes L, Abroug F, Ben Khelil J, Besbes M, Garnero A, Arnal JM, Daviaud F, Chiche JD, Lortat-Jacob B, et al. A multicenter randomized trial assessing the efficacy of helium/oxygen in severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(7):871–880. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201601-0083OC.
    1. Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, Girault C, Ragot S, Perbet S, Prat G, Boulain T, Morawiec E, Cottereau A, et al. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2185–2196. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503326.
    1. Braunlich J, Kohler M, Wirtz H. Nasal highflow improves ventilation in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:1077–1085. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S104616.
    1. Longhini F, Pisani L, Lungu R, Comellini V, Bruni A, Garofalo E, Laura Vega M, Cammarota G, Nava S, Navalesi P. High-flow oxygen therapy after noninvasive ventilation interruption in patients recovering from Hypercapnic acute respiratory failure: a physiological crossover trial. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(6):e506–e511. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003740.
    1. Ni YN, Luo J, Yu H, Liu D, Liang BM, Yao R, Liang ZA. Can high-flow nasal cannula reduce the rate of reintubation in adult patients after extubation? A meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2017;17(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0491-6.
    1. Hernandez G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, Cuena R, Gonzalez P, Canabal A, Sanchez S, Rodriguez ML, Villasclaras A, Fernandez R. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs noninvasive ventilation on reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1565–1574. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14194.
    1. Jing G, Li J, Hao D, Wang T, Sun Y, Tian H, Fu Z, Zhang Y, Wang X. Comparison of high flow nasal cannula with noninvasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with hypercapnia in preventing postextubation respiratory failure: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Res Nurs Health. 2019;42(3):217–225. doi: 10.1002/nur.21942.
    1. Neumeier A, Keith R. Clinical guideline highlights for the hospitalist: the GOLD and NICE guidelines for the management of COPD. J Hosp Med. 2020;15(2):e1–e2.
    1. Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1970;2(2):92–98.
    1. Berkius J, Sundh J, Nilholm L, Fredrikson M, Walther SM. What determines immediate use of invasive ventilation in patients with COPD? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(3):312–319. doi: 10.1111/aas.12049.
    1. Vogelmeier CF, Criner GJ, Martinez FJ, Anzueto A, Barnes PJ, Bourbeau J, Celli BR, Chen R, Decramer M, Fabbri LM, et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive lung disease 2017 report. GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(5):557–582. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201701-0218PP.
    1. Lightowler JV, Wedzicha JA, Elliott MW, Ram FS. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation to treat respiratory failure resulting from exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;326(7382):185. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.185.
    1. Collaborating Research Group for Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation of Chinese Respiratory, S. Pulmonary infection control window in treatment of severe respiratory failure of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases: a prospective, randomized controlled, multi-centred study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2005;118(19):1589–94.
    1. Osadnik CR, Tee VS, Carson-Chahhoud KV, Picot J, Wedzicha JA, Smith BJ. Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:Cd004104.
    1. Liu J, Duan J, Bai L, Zhou L. Noninvasive ventilation intolerance: characteristics, predictors, and outcomes. Respir Care. 2016;61(3):277–284. doi: 10.4187/respcare.04220.
    1. Delclaux C, L’Her E, Alberti C, Mancebo J, Abroug F, Conti G, Guerin C, Schortgen F, Lefort Y, Antonelli M, et al. Treatment of acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory insufficiency with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by a face mask: a randomized controlled trial. Jama. 2000;284(18):2352–2360. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.18.2352.
    1. Braunlich J, Wirtz H. Nasal high-flow in acute hypercapnic exacerbation of COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:3895–3897. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S185001.
    1. Yuste ME, Moreno O, Narbona S, Acosta F, Penas L, Colmenero M. Efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in moderate acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(2):156–163. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20190026.
    1. Lee MK, Choi J, Park B, Kim B, Lee SJ, Kim SH, Yong SJ, Choi EH, Lee WY. High flow nasal cannulae oxygen therapy in acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure. Clin Respir J. 2018;12(6):2046–2056. doi: 10.1111/crj.12772.
    1. Sun J, Li Y, Ling B, Zhu Q, Hu Y, Tan D, Geng P, Xu J. High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: an observational cohort study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:1229–1237. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S206567.
    1. Di Mussi R, Spadaro S, Stripoli T, Volta CA, Trerotoli P, Pierucci P, Staffieri F, Bruno F, Camporota L, Grasso S. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy decreases postextubation neuroventilatory drive and work of breathing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Crit Care. 2018;22(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2107-9.
    1. Stéphan F, Barrucand B, Petit P, Rézaiguia-Delclaux S, Médard A, Delannoy B, Cosserant B, Flicoteaux G, Imbert A, Pilorge C, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen vs noninvasive positive airway pressure in hypoxemic patients after cardiothoracic surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2331–2339. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.5213.
    1. Doshi P, Whittle JS, Bublewicz M, Kearney J, Ashe T, Graham R, Salazar S, Ellis TW, Jr, Maynard D, Dennis R, et al. High-velocity nasal insufflation in the treatment of respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(1):73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.12.006.
    1. Nishimura M. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults: physiological benefits, indication, clinical benefits, and adverse effects. Respir Care. 2016;61(4):529–541. doi: 10.4187/respcare.04577.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi