Yun Ge, Bingwei Wang, Jingyuan Liu, Ruoyan Han, Changpeng Liu
{"title":"高流量鼻氧疗法对并发急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭的癌症患者的疗效:一项回顾性倾向评分研究。","authors":"Yun Ge, Bingwei Wang, Jingyuan Liu, Ruoyan Han, Changpeng Liu","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission of cancer patients. Studies of the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy were rarely conducted in cancer populations. We here compared the clinical effects of HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). In this single-center retrospective study, cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxic respiratory failure either received initial oxygen therapy via HFNC (HFNC group, 68 patients) or received initial oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula, simple mask, or mask with reservoir bag (COT group, 133 patients). Groups were propensity score matched. Differences in respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio before and after treatment in the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects model. The 28-day mortality risk was explored using a Cox proportional hazards model. The 24-h and 48-h PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratios were significantly higher in the HFNC than in the COT group (210.5 mmHg vs. 178.5 mmHg; P < 0.01; 217.1 mm Hg vs. 181.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01, respectively). Differences in RR and HR between the groups at each time point were nonsignificant. The 28-day mortality rate was 17.4% vs. 38.1% for the HFNC and COT groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio was significantly higher for COT group (HR 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 5.3). Compared with COT, HFNC use for initial oxygen therapy can improve PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratio and survival rate in cancer patients with AHRF.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective propensity score study.\",\"authors\":\"Yun Ge, Bingwei Wang, Jingyuan Liu, Ruoyan Han, Changpeng Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission of cancer patients. Studies of the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy were rarely conducted in cancer populations. We here compared the clinical effects of HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). In this single-center retrospective study, cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxic respiratory failure either received initial oxygen therapy via HFNC (HFNC group, 68 patients) or received initial oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula, simple mask, or mask with reservoir bag (COT group, 133 patients). Groups were propensity score matched. Differences in respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio before and after treatment in the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects model. The 28-day mortality risk was explored using a Cox proportional hazards model. The 24-h and 48-h PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratios were significantly higher in the HFNC than in the COT group (210.5 mmHg vs. 178.5 mmHg; P < 0.01; 217.1 mm Hg vs. 181.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01, respectively). Differences in RR and HR between the groups at each time point were nonsignificant. The 28-day mortality rate was 17.4% vs. 38.1% for the HFNC and COT groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio was significantly higher for COT group (HR 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 5.3). Compared with COT, HFNC use for initial oxygen therapy can improve PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratio and survival rate in cancer patients with AHRF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective propensity score study.
Acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission of cancer patients. Studies of the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy were rarely conducted in cancer populations. We here compared the clinical effects of HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). In this single-center retrospective study, cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxic respiratory failure either received initial oxygen therapy via HFNC (HFNC group, 68 patients) or received initial oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula, simple mask, or mask with reservoir bag (COT group, 133 patients). Groups were propensity score matched. Differences in respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and PaO2/FiO2 ratio before and after treatment in the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects model. The 28-day mortality risk was explored using a Cox proportional hazards model. The 24-h and 48-h PaO2/FIO2 ratios were significantly higher in the HFNC than in the COT group (210.5 mmHg vs. 178.5 mmHg; P < 0.01; 217.1 mm Hg vs. 181.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01, respectively). Differences in RR and HR between the groups at each time point were nonsignificant. The 28-day mortality rate was 17.4% vs. 38.1% for the HFNC and COT groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio was significantly higher for COT group (HR 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 5.3). Compared with COT, HFNC use for initial oxygen therapy can improve PaO2/FIO2 ratio and survival rate in cancer patients with AHRF.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.