HVNI vs NIPPV in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: Subgroup analysis of a multi-center trial in the ED

Abstract

Background and objectiveManaging respiratory failure (RF) secondary to acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) with non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) has been shown to significantly improve morbidity and mortality in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). This subgroup analysis compares high-velocity nasal insufflation (HVNI), a form of high-flow nasal cannula, with NIPPV in the treatment of RF secondary to ADHF with respect to therapy failure, as indicated by the requirement for intubation or all-cause arm failure including subjective crossover to the alternate therapy. MethodsThe subgroup analysis is from a larger randomized control trial of adults presenting to the ED with RF requiring NIPPV support. Patients were randomly selected to therapy, and subgroup selection was established a priori in the original study as a discharge diagnosis. The primary outcome was therapy failure at 72 h after enrolment. ResultsSubgroup analysis included a total of 22 HVNI and 20 NIPPV patients which fit discharge diagnosis ADHF. Baseline patient characteristics were not statistically significant. Primary outcomes were not statistically significant: intubation rate (p = 1.000), therapy success (p = 1.000). Repeated measures (vitals, dyspnea, blood gases) showed comparable differences over initial 4 h. Physicians scored HVNI superior on patient comfort/tolerance (p < 0.001), ease of use (p = 0.004), and monitoring (p = 0.036). Limitations were technical inability to blind the clinician team and lack of power of the subgroup analysis. ConclusionIn conclusion, this subgroup analysis suggests HVNI may be non-inferior to NIPPV in patients with respiratory failure secondary to ADHF that do not need emergent intubation.