High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled pilot study.
Nicolas Marjanovic, Melyne Piton, Jennifer Lamarre, Camille Alleyrat, Raphael Couvreur, Jérémy Guenezan, Olivier Mimoz, Jean-Pierre Frat
{"title":"High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled pilot study.","authors":"Nicolas Marjanovic, Melyne Piton, Jennifer Lamarre, Camille Alleyrat, Raphael Couvreur, Jérémy Guenezan, Olivier Mimoz, Jean-Pierre Frat","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether high-flow nasal oxygen can improve clinical signs of acute respiratory failure in acute heart failure (AHF) is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effect of high-flow oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on respiratory rate in patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) for AHF-related acute respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Design, settings and participants: </strong>Multicenter, randomized pilot study in three French EDs. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to suspected AHF were included. Key exclusion criteria were urgent need for intubation, Glasgow Coma Scale <13 points or hemodynamic instability.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (minimum 50 l/min) or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation.</p><p><strong>Outcomes measure: </strong>The primary outcome was change in respiratory rate within the first hour of treatment and was analyzed with a linear mixed model. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulse oximetry, heart rate, blood pressure, blood gas samples, comfort, treatment failure and mortality.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Among the 145 eligible patients in the three participating centers, 60 patients were included in the analysis [median age 86 (interquartile range (IQR), 90; 92) years]. There was a median respiratory rate of 30.5 (IQR, 28; 33) and 29.5 (IQR, 27; 35) breaths/min in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change of -10 (IQR, -12; -8) with high-flow nasal oxygen and -7 (IQR, -11; -5) breaths/min with NIV [estimated difference -2.6 breaths/min (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.5-5.7), P = 0.052] at 60 min. There was a median SpO 2 of 95 (IQR, 92; 97) and 96 (IQR, 93; 97) in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change at 60 min of 2 (IQR, 0; 5) with high-flow nasal oxygen and 2 (IQR, -1; 5) % with NIV [estimated difference 0.8% (95% CI, -1.1-2.8), P = 0.60]. PaO 2 , PaCO 2 and pH did not differ at 1 h between groups, nor did treatment failure, intubation and mortality rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this pilot study, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in changes in respiratory rate among patients with acute respiratory failure due to AHF and managed with high-flow oxygen or NIV. However, the point estimate and its large confidence interval may suggest a benefit of high-flow oxygen.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT04971213 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ).</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"267-275"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001128","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Whether high-flow nasal oxygen can improve clinical signs of acute respiratory failure in acute heart failure (AHF) is uncertain.
Objective: To compare the effect of high-flow oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on respiratory rate in patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) for AHF-related acute respiratory failure.
Design, settings and participants: Multicenter, randomized pilot study in three French EDs. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to suspected AHF were included. Key exclusion criteria were urgent need for intubation, Glasgow Coma Scale <13 points or hemodynamic instability.
Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (minimum 50 l/min) or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation.
Outcomes measure: The primary outcome was change in respiratory rate within the first hour of treatment and was analyzed with a linear mixed model. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulse oximetry, heart rate, blood pressure, blood gas samples, comfort, treatment failure and mortality.
Main results: Among the 145 eligible patients in the three participating centers, 60 patients were included in the analysis [median age 86 (interquartile range (IQR), 90; 92) years]. There was a median respiratory rate of 30.5 (IQR, 28; 33) and 29.5 (IQR, 27; 35) breaths/min in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change of -10 (IQR, -12; -8) with high-flow nasal oxygen and -7 (IQR, -11; -5) breaths/min with NIV [estimated difference -2.6 breaths/min (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.5-5.7), P = 0.052] at 60 min. There was a median SpO 2 of 95 (IQR, 92; 97) and 96 (IQR, 93; 97) in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change at 60 min of 2 (IQR, 0; 5) with high-flow nasal oxygen and 2 (IQR, -1; 5) % with NIV [estimated difference 0.8% (95% CI, -1.1-2.8), P = 0.60]. PaO 2 , PaCO 2 and pH did not differ at 1 h between groups, nor did treatment failure, intubation and mortality rates.
Conclusion: In this pilot study, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in changes in respiratory rate among patients with acute respiratory failure due to AHF and managed with high-flow oxygen or NIV. However, the point estimate and its large confidence interval may suggest a benefit of high-flow oxygen.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field.
Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
