Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background High flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) are two widely used modes of non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care units. The FIRST-ABC randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP in two distinct critical care populations: acutely ill children (‘step-up’ RCT) and extubated children (‘step-down’ RCT). Clinical effectiveness findings (time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support) showed that HFNC was non-inferior to CPAP in the step-up RCT, but failed to meet non-inferiority criteria in the step-down RCT. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP. Methods All-cause mortality, health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL), and costs up to six months were reported using FIRST-ABC RCTs data. HrQoL was measured with the age-appropriate Paediatric Quality of Life Generic Core Scales questionnaire and mapped onto the Child Health Utility 9D index score at six months. Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) were estimated by combining HrQoL with mortality. Costs at six months were calculated by measuring and valuing healthcare resources used in paediatric critical care units, general medical wards and wider health service. The cost-effectiveness analysis used regression methods to report the cost-effectiveness of HFNC versus CPAP at six months and summarised the uncertainties around the incremental cost-effectiveness results. Results In both RCTs, the incremental QALYs at six months were similar between the randomised groups. The estimated incremental cost at six months was − £4565 (95% CI − £11,499 to £2368) and − £5702 (95% CI − £11,328 to − £75) for step-down and step-up RCT, respectively. The incremental net benefits of HFNC versus CPAP in step-down RCT and step-up RCT were £4388 (95% CI − £2551 to £11,327) and £5628 (95% CI − £8 to £11,264) respectively. The cost-effectiveness results were surrounded by considerable uncertainties. The results were similar across most pre-specified subgroups, and the base case results were robust to alternative assumptions. Conclusions HFNC compared to CPAP as non-invasive respiratory support for critically-ill children in paediatric critical care units reduces mean costs and is relatively cost-effective overall and for key subgroups, although there is considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding this result.

Purpose Intubation in patients with respiratory failure can be avoided by high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use. However, it is unclear whether waiting until HFNC fails, which would delay intubation, has adverse effects. The present retrospective observational study assessed overall ICU mortality and other hospital outcomes of patients who received HFNC therapy that failed. Methods All consecutive patients in one tertiary hospital who received HFNC therapy that failed and who then required intubation between January 2013 and March 2014 were enrolled and classified according to whether intubation started early (within 48 h) or late (at least 48 h) after commencing HFNC. Results Of the 175 enrolled patients, 130 (74.3 %) and 45 (25.7 %) were intubated before and after 48 h of HFNC, respectively. The groups were similar in terms of most baseline characteristics. The early intubated patients had better overall ICU mortality (39.2 vs. 66.7 %; P  = 0.001) than late intubated patients. A similar pattern was seen with extubation success (37.7 vs. 15.6 %; P  = 0.006), ventilator weaning (55.4 vs. 28.9 %; P  = 0.002), and ventilator-free days (8.6 ± 10.1 vs. 3.6 ± 7.5; P  = 0.011). In propensity-adjusted and -matched analysis, early intubation was also associated with better overall ICU mortality [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.317, P  = 0.005; matched OR = 0.369, P  = 0.046]. Conclusions Failure of HFNC might cause delayed intubation and worse clinical outcomes in patients with respiratory failure. Large prospective and randomized controlled studies on HFNC failure are needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Abstract Rationale Oxygen is commonly administered after extubation. Although several devices are available, data about their clinical efficacy are scarce. Objectives To compare the effects of the Venturi mask and the nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy on PaO2/FiO2SET ratio after extubation. Secondary endpoints were to assess effects on patient discomfort, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. Methods Randomized, controlled, open-label trial on 105 patients with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio less than or equal to 300 immediately before extubation. The Venturi mask (n = 52) or NHF (n = 53) were applied for 48 hours postextubation. Measurements and Main Results PaO2/FiO2SET, patient discomfort caused by the interface and by symptoms of airways dryness (on a 10-point numerical rating scale), interface displacements, oxygen desaturations, need for ventilator support, and reintubation were assessed up to 48 hours after extubation. From the 24th hour, PaO2/FiO2SET was higher with the NHF (287 ± 74 vs. 247 ± 81 at 24 h; P = 0.03). Discomfort related both to the interface and to airways dryness was better with NHF (respectively, 2.6 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.3 at 24 h, P = 0.006; 2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 2.4 at 24 h, P = 0.002). Fewer patients had interface displacements (32% vs. 56%; P = 0.01), oxygen desaturations (40% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), required reintubation (4% vs. 21%; P = 0.01), or any form of ventilator support (7% vs. 35%; P < 0.001) in the NHF group. Conclusions Compared with the Venturi mask, NHF results in better oxygenation for the same set FiO2 after extubation. Use of NHF is associated with better comfort, fewer desaturations and interface displacements, and a lower reintubation rate. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01575353).

Background 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. Methods Patients diagnosed with AECOPD with a baseline arterial blood gas pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO 2  ≥ 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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. Trial registration : chictr.org (ChiCTR1800014553). Registered 21 January 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn

Purpose Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) is currently the gold standard for respiratory support for moderate to severe acute viral bronchiolitis (AVB). Although oxygen delivery via high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is increasingly used, evidence of its efficacy and safety is lacking in infants. Methods A randomized controlled trial was performed in five pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) to compare 7 cmH 2 O nCPAP with 2 L/kg/min oxygen therapy administered with HFNC in infants up to 6 months old with moderate to severe AVB. The primary endpoint was the percentage of failure within 24 h of randomization using prespecified criteria. To satisfy noninferiority, the failure rate of HFNC had to lie within 15% of the failure rate of nCPAP. Secondary outcomes included success rate after crossover, intubation rate, length of stay, and serious adverse events. Results From November 2014 to March 2015, 142 infants were included and equally distributed into groups. The risk difference of −19% (95% CI −35 to −3%) did not allow the conclusion of HFNC noninferiority ( p  = 0.707). Superiority analysis suggested a relative risk of success 1.63 (95% CI 1.02–2.63) higher with nCPAP. The success rate with the alternative respiratory support, intubation rate, durations of noninvasive and invasive ventilation, skin lesions, and length of PICU stay were comparable between groups. No patient had air leak syndrome or died. Conclusion In young infants with moderate to severe AVB, initial management with HFNC did not have a failure rate similar to that of nCPAP. This clinical trial was recorded in the National Library of Medicine registry (NCT 02457013).

Moderate cooling after birth asphyxia is associated with substantial reductions in death and disability, but additional therapies might provide further benefit. We assessed whether the addition of xenon gas, a promising novel therapy, after the initiation of hypothermia for birth asphyxia would result in further improvement. Total Body hypothermia plus Xenon (TOBY-Xe) was a proof-of-concept, randomised, open-label, parallel-group trial done at four intensive-care neonatal units in the UK. Eligible infants were 36–43 weeks of gestational age, had signs of moderate to severe encephalopathy and moderately or severely abnormal background activity for at least 30 min or seizures as shown by amplitude-integrated EEG (aEEG), and had one of the following: Apgar score of 5 or less 10 min after birth, continued need for resuscitation 10 min after birth, or acidosis within 1 h of birth. Participants were allocated in a 1:1 ratio by use of a secure web-based computer-generated randomisation sequence within 12 h of birth to cooling to a rectal temperature of 33·5°C for 72 h (standard treatment) or to cooling in combination with 30% inhaled xenon for 24 h started immediately after randomisation. The primary outcomes were reduction in lactate to N-acetyl aspartate ratio in the thalamus and in preserved fractional anisotropy in the posterior limb of the internal capsule, measured with magnetic resonance spectroscopy and MRI, respectively, within 15 days of birth. The investigator assessing these outcomes was masked to allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00934700, and with ISRCTN, as ISRCTN08886155. The study was done from Jan 31, 2012, to Sept 30, 2014. We enrolled 92 infants, 46 of whom were randomly assigned to cooling only and 46 to xenon plus cooling. 37 infants in the cooling only group and 41 in the cooling plus xenon group underwent magnetic resonance assessments and were included in the analysis of the primary outcomes. We noted no significant differences in lactate to N-acetyl aspartate ratio in the thalamus (geometric mean ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·90 to 1·32) or fractional anisotropy (mean difference −0·01, 95% CI −0·03 to 0·02) in the posterior limb of the internal capsule between the two groups. Nine infants died in the cooling group and 11 in the xenon group. Two adverse events were reported in the xenon group: subcutaneous fat necrosis and transient desaturation during the MRI. No serious adverse events were recorded. Administration of xenon within the delayed timeframe used in this trial is feasible and apparently safe, but is unlikely to enhance the neuroprotective effect of cooling after birth asphyxia. UK Medical Research Council.

PurposeSepsis is a common reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in ICU patients. Despite increasing interest in treatment strategies limiting oxygen exposure in ICU patients, no trials have compared conservative vs. usual oxygen in patients with sepsis.MethodsWe undertook a post hoc analysis of the 251 patients with sepsis enrolled in a trial that compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual oxygen therapy in 1000 mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The primary end point for the current analysis was 90-day mortality. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, ventilator-free days, vasopressor-free days, and the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy in the ICU.ResultsPatients with sepsis allocated to conservative oxygen therapy spent less time in the ICU with an SpO2 ≥ 97% (23.5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 8–70] vs. 47 h [IQR 11–93], absolute difference, 23 h; 95% CI 8–38), and more time receiving an FiO2 of 0.21 than patients allocated to usual oxygen therapy (20.5 h [IQR 1–79] vs. 0 h [IQR 0–10], absolute difference, 20 h; 95% CI 14–26). At 90-days, 47 of 130 patients (36.2%) assigned to conservative oxygen and 35 of 120 patients (29.2%) assigned to usual oxygen had died (absolute difference, 7 percentage points; 95% CI − 4.6 to 18.6% points; P = 0.24; interaction P = 0.35 for sepsis vs. non-sepsis). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for secondary outcomes but point estimates of treatment effects consistently favored usual oxygen therapy.ConclusionsPoint estimates for the treatment effect of conservative oxygen therapy on 90-day mortality raise the possibility of clinically important harm with this intervention in patients with sepsis; however, our post hoc analysis was not powered to detect the effects suggested and our data do not exclude clinically important benefit or harm from conservative oxygen therapy in this patient group.Clinical Trials RegistryICU-ROX Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12615000957594.

Oxygen therapy prolongs survival in patients with severe hypoxemia but is a burden. In this trial, therapy for 24 rather than 15 hours per day did not reduce the risk of hospitalization or death at 1 year.

Purpose Preoxygenation with high-flow therapy by nasal cannulae (HFNC) is now widespread in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, no large randomized study has assessed its relevance in non-severely hypoxemic patients. In a randomized controlled trial (PROTRACH study), we aimed to evaluate preoxygenation with HFNC vs. standard bag-valve mask oxygenation (SMO) in non-severely hypoxemic patients during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the ICU. Methods Randomized controlled trial including non-severely hypoxemic patients requiring intubation in the ICU. Patients received preoxygenation by HFNC or SMO during RSI. HFNC was maintained throughout the intubation procedure whereas SMO was removed to perform laryngoscopy. The primary outcome was the lowest pulse oximetry (SpO 2 ) throughout the intubation procedure. Secondary outcomes included drop in SpO 2 , adverse events related to intubation, and outcome in the ICU. Results A total of 192 patients were randomized. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 184 patients (HFNC n  = 95; SMO n  = 89), the median [IQR] lowest SpO 2 was 100% [97; 100] for HFNC and 99% [95; 100] for the SMO group ( P  = 0.30). Mild desaturation below 95% was more frequent with SMO (23%) than with HFNC (12%) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26–0.99, P  = 0.045). There were fewer adverse events in the HFNC group (6%) than in the SMO group (19%) (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13–0.76, P  = 0.007), including fewer severe adverse events, respectively 6 (6%) and 14 (16%) with HFNC and SMO (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15–0.95, P  = 0.03). Conclusions Compared with SMO, preoxygenation with HFNC in the ICU did not improve the lowest SpO 2 during intubation in the non-severely hypoxemic patients but led to a reduction in intubation-related adverse events. Trial registration Clinical trial Submission: 7 March 2016. Registry name: Benefits of high-flow nasal cannulae oxygen for preoxygenation during intubation in non-severely hypoxemic patients: the PROTRACH study. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02700321. Eudra CT: 2015-A00145-44. CPP: 15/13-975 (Comité de protection des personnes de Rennes). URL registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02700321 .

BACKGROUND: Whether noninvasive ventilation should be administered in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. Therapy with high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula may offer an alternative in patients with hypoxemia. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label trial in which we randomly assigned patients without hypercapnia who had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less to high-flow oxygen therapy, standard oxygen therapy delivered through a face mask, or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients intubated at day 28; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality in the intensive care unit and at 90 days and the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included in the analyses. The intubation rate (primary outcome) was 38% (40 of 106 patients) in the high-flow-oxygen group, 47% (44 of 94) in the standard group, and 50% (55 of 110) in the noninvasive-ventilation group (P=0.18 for all comparisons). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was significantly higher in the high-flow-oxygen group (24+/-8 days, vs. 22+/-10 in the standard-oxygen group and 19+/-12 in the noninvasive-ventilation group; P=0.02 for all comparisons). The hazard ratio for death at 90 days was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.99) with standard oxygen versus high-flow oxygen (P=0.046) and 2.50 (95% CI, 1.31 to 4.78) with noninvasive ventilation versus high-flow oxygen (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with high-flow oxygen, standard oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation did not result in significantly different intubation rates. There was a significant difference in favor of high-flow oxygen in 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interregional 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; FLORALI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01320384.).