Objective To explore the efficacy of humidified high flow nasal cannula ( HHFNC) for respiratory failure after ventilator weaning in post-operative newborns and infants with congenital heart disease. Methods FromJanuary 2010 to August 2010, 33 newborns and infants [ ( 7. 8 ±8. 4) months, range 3 days to 36 months; weight ( 6. 6 ±3. 6) kg, range 2. 2 to 19. 6 kg] were treated with HHFNC ( 22 cases) and routine oxygen therapy ( 11 cases) for respiratory failure following ventilator weaning after operation of congenital heart disease. Symptoms, blood oxygen saturation ( SpO2 ) , partial pressure of oxygen( PaO2 ) , partial pressure of carbondioxide ( PaCO2 ) , incidence rate of re-intubation, duration of ICU, and hospital stay were assessed and compared between the HHFNC group and the routine oxygen therapy group.Results There were no statistical significance in the duration of ICU, hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, or infection rate between the HHFNC group and the routine oxygen therapy group ( P gt; 0. 05) . But the incidence rate of re-intubation was lower in the HHFNC group than that in the routine oxygen therapy group. Meanwhile SpO2 and PaO2 increased and PaCO2 decreased significantly in the HHFNC group ( P lt;0. 05) . Conclusion HHFNC shows a clinical improvement rapidly and efficiently in preventing respiratory failure after ventilator weaning in post-operative newborns and infants with congenital heart disease.
ObjectiveTo compare the therapeutic effects of invasive-high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC) and invasive-non-invasive ventilation (NIV) sequential strategies on severe respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and explore the feasibility of HFNC after extubation from invasive ventilation for COPD patients with severe respiratory failure.MethodsFrom October 2017 to October 2019, COPD patients with type Ⅱ respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation were randomly assigned to a HFNC group and a NIV group at 1: 1 in intensive care unit (ICU), when pulmonary infection control window appeared after treatments. The patients in the HFNC group received HFNC, while the patients in the NIV group received NIV after extubation. The primary endpoint was treatment failure rate. The secondary endpoints were blood gas analysis and vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation, total respiratory support time after extubation, daily airway care interventions, comfort scores, and incidence of nasal and facial skin lesions, ICU length of stay, total length of stay and 28-day mortality after extubation.ResultsOne hundred and twelve patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and the NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 53 patients and 52 patients in the HFNC group and the NIV group were included in the analysis respectively. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.6%, which was lower than the 28.8% in the NIV group. The risk difference of the failure rate between the two groups was –6.2% (95%CI –22.47 - 10.43, P=0.509), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior effect 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 –38.4% (95%CI –62.5 - –3.6, P=0.043). One hour after extubation, the respiratory rate of both groups increased higher than the baseline level before extubation (P<0.05). 24 hours after extubation, the respiratory rate in the HFNC group decreased to the baseline level, but the respiratory rate in the NIV group was still higher than the baseline level, and the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group [(19.1±3.8) vs. (21.7±4.5) times per minute, P<0.05]. 48 hours after extubation, the respiratory rates in the two groups were not significantly different from their baseline levels. The average daily airway care intervention in the NIV group was 9 (5 - 12) times, which was significantly higher than the 5 (4 - 7) times in the HFNC group (P=0.006). The comfort score of the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NIV group (8.6±3.2 vs. 5.7±2.8, P= 0.022), while the incidence of nasal and facial skin lesions in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (0 vs. 9.6%, P=0.027). There was no significant difference in dyspnea score, length of stay and 28-day mortality between the two groups.ConclusionsThe efficacy of invasive-HFNC sequential treatment on COPD with severe respiratory failure is not inferior to that of invasive-NIV sequential strategy. The two groups have similar treatment failure rates, and HFNC has better comfort and treatment tolerance.
Objective To compare the sequential efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) with non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV). Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of NIV sequential invasive mechanical ventilation with HFNC were included in the Chinese Journal Full-text Database, VIP Journal database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4 software. Results A total of 2404 subjects were included in 19 studies. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with NIV, HFNC had a statistically significant difference in reducing patients' re-intubation rate in invasive mechanical ventilation sequence [relative risk (RR)=0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 - 0.86, Z=3.10, P=0.002]. HFNC showed statistically significant difference compared with NIV in reducing lung infection rate (RR=0.40, 95%CI 0.21 - 0.79, Z=2.67, P=0.008). HFNC was significantly different from NIV in terms of length of stay in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (MD=–5.77, 95%CI –7.64 - –3.90, Z=6.05, P<0.00001). HFNC was significantly different from NIV in improving 24 h oxygenation index (MD=13.16, 95%CI 8.77 - 17.55, Z=5.87, P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in ICU mortality between HFNC and NIV (RR=0.70, 95%CI 0.45 - 1.08, Z=1.61, P=0.11). Conclusion Compared with NIV, sequential application of HFNC in invasive mechanical ventilation can improve the reintubation rate and pulmonary infection rate to a certain extent, reduce the length of ICU stay and improve the 24 h oxygenation index, while there is no difference in ICU mortality, which is worthy of clinical application.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in Post-extubation acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients. MethodsThe Domestic and foreign databases were searched for all published available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about HFNC therapy in post-extubation AECOPD patients. The experimental group was treated with HFNC, while the control group was treated with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). The main outcome measurements included reintubation rate. The secondary outcomes measurements included oxygenation index after extubation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mortality, comfort score and adverse reaction rate. Meta-analysis was performed by Revman 5.3 software. ResultA total of 20 articles were enrolled. There were 1516 patients enrolled, with 754 patients in HFNC group, and 762 patients in control group. The results of Meta-analysis showed that there were no significant difference in reintubation rate [RR=1.41, 95%CI 0.97 - 2.07, P=0.08] and mortality [RR=0.91, 95%CI 0.58 - 1.44, P=0.69]. Compared with NIPPV, HFNC have advantages in 24 h oxygenation index after extubation [MD=4.66, 95%CI 0.26 - 9.05, P=0.04], length of ICU stay [High risk group: SMD –0.52, 95%CI –0.74 - –0.30; Medium and low risk group: MD –1.12, 95%CI –1.56- –0.67; P<0.00001], comfort score [MD=1.90, 95%CI 1.61 - 2.19, P<0.00001] and adverse reaction rate [RR=0.22, 95%CI 0.16 - 0.31, P<0.00001]. ConclusionsCompared with NIPPV, HFNC could improve oxygenation index after extubation, shorten the length of ICU stay, effectively improve Patient comfort, reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions and it did not increase the risk of reintubation and mortality. It is suggested that HFNC can be cautiously tried for sequential treatment of AECOPD patients after extubation, especially those who cannot tolerate NIPPV.