ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with moderate typeⅡ respiratory failure, to clarify the feasibility of HFNC in the treatment of AECOPD, and to explore the influencing factors of HFNC failure.Methods:This study was a randomized controlled trial of non-inferiority. Patients with AECOPD with moderate type Ⅱ respiratory failure [arterial blood gas pH 7.25-7.35, partial pressure of arterial blood carbon dioxide (PaCO 2)> 50 mmHg] admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) from January 2018 to December 2021 were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and NIV group to receive respiratory support. The primary endpoint was the treatment failure rate. The secondary endpoints were blood gas analysis and vital signs at 1 h, 12 h, and 48 h, total duration of respiratory support, 28-day mortality, comfort score, ICU length of stay, and total length of stay. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the failure factors of HFNC treatment. Results:Totally 228 patients were randomly divided into two groups, 108 patients in the HFNC group and 110 patients in the NIV group. The treatment failure rate was 29.6% in the HFNC group and 25.5% in the NIV group. The risk difference of failure rate between the two groups was 4.18% (95% CI: -8.27%~16.48%, P=0.490), which was lower than the non-inferiority value of 9%. The most common causes of failure in the HFNC group were carbon dioxide retention and aggravation of respiratory distress, and the most common causes of failure in the NIV group were treatment intolerance and aggravation of respiratory distress. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (-29.02%, 95% CI -49.52%~-7.49%; P=0.004). After 1 h of treatment, the pH in both groups increased significantly, PaCO 2 decreased significantly and the oxygenation index increased significantly compared with baseline (all P < 0.05). PaCO 2 in both groups decreased gradually at 1 h, 12 h and 48 h after treatment, and the pH gradually increased. The average number of daily airway care interventions and the incidence of nasal and facial lesions in the HFNC group were significantly lower than those in the NIV group ( P < 0.05), while the comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that in the NIV group ( P=0.021). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the total duration of respiratory support, dyspnea score, ICU length of stay, total length of stay and 28-day mortality (all P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ score (≥15), family NIV, history of cerebrovascular accident, PaCO 2 (≥60 mmHg) and respiratory rate (≥32 times/min) at 1 h were independent predictors of HFNC failure. Conclusions:HFNC is not inferior to NIV in the treatment of AECOPD complicated with moderate type Ⅱ respiratory failure. HFNC is an ideal choice of respiratory support for patients with NIV intolerance, but clinical application should pay attention to the influencing factors of its treatment failure.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the therapeutic effects of nasal high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC) and nasal canal oxygenation (NCO) during breaks off non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), and to explore the feasibility of NIV combined with HFNC in the treatment of AECOPD.Methods:From August 2017 to July 2019, AECOPD patients with type Ⅱrespiratory failure (arterial blood gas pH <7.35, PaCO 2 > 50 mmHg) who were treated with NIV were randomly (random number) assigned to the HFNC group and NCO group at 1:1. The HFNC group received HFNC treatment during breaks from NIV and the NCO group received low-flow NCO during the NIV interval. The primary endpoint was the total respiratory support time. The secondary endpoints were endotracheal intubation, duration of NIV treatment and breaks from NIV, length of ICU stay, total length of hospital stay and so on. Results:Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and the NCO group. After secondary exclusion, 36 patients in the HFNC group and 37 patients in the NCO group were included in the analysis. The total respiratory support time in the HFNC group was significantly shorter than that in the NCO group [(74 ± 18) h vs. (93 ± 20) h, P = 0.042]. The total duration of NIV treatment in the HFNC group was significantly shorter than that in the NCO group [(36 ± 11) h vs. (51 ± 13) h, P=0.014]. There was no significant difference of the mean duration of single break from NIV between the two groups, but durations of break from NIV in the HFNC group were significantly longer than those in the NCO group since the third break from NIV ( P < 0.05). The intubation rates of the HFNC and NCO groups were 13.9% and 18.9%, respectively, with no significant difference ( P=0.562). The length of ICU stay in the HFNC group was (4.3 ± 1.7) days, which was shorter than that in the NCO group [(5.8 ± 2.1) days, P=0.045], but there was no significant difference in the total length of hospital stay between the two groups. Heart rate, respiratory rate, percutaneous carbon dioxide partial pressure and dyspnea score during the breaks from NIV in the NCO group were significantly higher than those in the HFNC group, and the comfort score was lower than that in the HFNC group ( P<0.05). Conclusion:For AECOPD patients receiving NIV, compared with NCO, HFNC during breaks from NIV can shorten respiratory support time and length of ICU stay, and improve carbon dioxide retention and dyspnea. HFNC is an ideal complement to NIV therapy in AECOPD patients.
ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the benefits and risks of stress ulcer prevention (SUP) using proton pump inhibitors (PPI) for critical patients. Methods The clinical data of adult critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital from January 2016 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients who were treated with PPI for SUP within the first 48 hours after ICU admission were enrolled in the SUP group. Those who not received PPI were enrolled in the control group. A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for potential biases. The gender, age, underlying diseases, main diagnosis of ICU, drug use before ICU admission, sequential organ failure score (SOFA) at ICU admission, risk factors of stress ulcer (SU) and PPI usage were recorded. The end point was the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding, hospital acquired pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection and 30-day mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted, and survival analysis was performed using the log-rank test. Results 1 972 critical patients (788 in the SUP group and 1 184 in the control group) were enrolled, and each group enrolled 358 patients after PSM. Prior to PSM, compared with the control group, the SUP group had older patients, more underlying diseases, higher proportion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute cerebrovascular disease, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and poisoning in main diagnosis of ICU, more serious illness, and more risk factors of SU, indicating that ICU physicians were more likely to prescribe SUP for these patients. The incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in the SUP group was significantly lower than that in the control group [1.8% (14/788) vs. 3.7% (44/1 184), P < 0.05], while the incidence of hospital acquired pneumonia and 30-day mortality were significantly higher than those in the control group [6.6% (52/788) vs. 3.5% (42/1 184), 17.9% (141/788) vs. 13.1% (155/1 184), both P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection between the SUP group and the control group [2.9% (23/788) vs. 1.8% (21/1 184), P >0.05]. After the propensity scores for age, underlying diseases, severity of illness and SU risk factors were matched, there was no significant difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or 30-day mortality between the SUP group and the control group [2.2% (8/358) vs. 3.4% (12/358), 15.9% (57/358) vs. 13.7% (49/358), both P > 0.05], but the incidence of hospital acquired pneumonia in the SUP group was still significantly higher than that in the control group [6.7% (24/358) vs. 3.1% (11/358), P < 0.05]. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed that the 30-day cumulative survival rate of the SUP group was significantly lower than that of the control group before the PSM (log-rank test: χ2 = 9.224, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the 30-day cumulative survival rate between the two groups after PSM (log-rank test: χ2 = 0.773, P = 0.379). Conclusion For critical patients, the use of PPI for SUP could not significantly reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality, but increase the risk of hospital acquired pneumonia.