Trial Of Noninvasive Ventilation Research Articles

The Impact of Delayed Transition From Noninvasive to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation on Hospital Mortality in Immunocompromised Patients With Sepsis.

To determine whether mortality differed between initial invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) followed by delayed IMV in immunocompromised patients with sepsis. Retrospective analysis using the National Data Center for Medical Service claims data in China from 2017 to 2019. A total of 3530 hospitals across China. A total of 36,187 adult immunocompromised patients with sepsis requiring ventilation. None. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Patients were categorized into NIV initiation or IMV initiation groups based on first ventilation. NIV patients were further divided by time to IMV transition: no transition, immediate (≤ 1 d), early (2-3 d), delayed (4-7 d), or late (≥ 8 d). Mortality was compared between groups using weighted Cox models. Over the median 9-day follow-up, mortality was similar for initial NIV versus IMV (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.006; 95% CI, 0.959-1.055). However, among NIV patients, a longer time to IMV transition is associated with stepwise increases in mortality, from immediate transition (HR 1.65) to late transition (HR 2.51), compared with initial IMV. This dose-response relationship persisted across subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Prolonged NIV trial before delayed IMV transition is associated with higher mortality in immunocompromised sepsis patients ultimately intubated.

Digital Twins of Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Patients Suggest a Mechanistic Basis for Success and Failure of Noninvasive Ventilation.

To clarify the mechanistic basis for the success or failure of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). We created digital twins based on mechanistic computational models of individual patients with AHRF. Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Systems Medicine Research Network. We used individual patient data from 30 moderate-to-severe AHRF patients who had failed high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and subsequently underwent a trial of NIV. Using the digital twins, we evaluated lung mechanics, quantified the separate contributions of external support and patient respiratory effort to lung injury indices, and investigated their relative impact on NIV success or failure. In digital twins of patients who successfully completed/failed NIV, after 2 hours of the trial the mean (sd) of the change in total lung stress was -10.9 (6.2)/-0.35 (3.38) cm H2O, mechanical power -13.4 (12.2)/-1.0 (5.4) J/min, and total lung strain 0.02 (0.24)/0.16 (0.30). In the digital twins, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) produced by HFNC was similar to that set during NIV. In digital twins of patients who failed NIV vs. those who succeeded, intrinsic PEEP was 3.5 (0.6) vs. 2.3 (0.8) cm H2O, inspiratory pressure support was 8.3 (5.9) vs. 22.3 (7.2) cm H2O, and tidal volume was 10.9 (1.2) vs. 9.4 (1.8) mL/kg. In digital twins, successful NIV increased respiratory system compliance +25.0 (16.4) mL/cm H2O, lowered inspiratory muscle pressure -9.7 (9.6) cm H2O, and reduced the contribution of patient spontaneous breathing to total driving pressure by 57.0%. In digital twins of AHRF patients, successful NIV improved lung mechanics, lowering respiratory effort and indices associated with lung injury. NIV failed in patients for whom only low levels of positive inspiratory pressure support could be applied without risking patient self-inflicted lung injury due to excessive tidal volumes.

First-Line Respiratory Support for Children With Hematologic Malignancy and Acute Respiratory Failure.

To characterize trends in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) use over time in children with hematologic malignancy admitted to the PICU with acute respiratory failure (ARF), and to identify risk factors associated with NIV failure requiring transition to IMV. Retrospective cohort analysis using the Virtual Pediatric Systems (VPS, LLC) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019. One hundred thirteen North American PICUs participating in VPS. Two thousand four hundred eighty children 0-21 years old with hematologic malignancy admitted to participating PICUs for ARF requiring respiratory support. None. There were 3013 total encounters, of which 868 (28.8%) received first-line NIV alone (NIV only), 1544 (51.2%) received first-line IMV (IMV only), and 601 (19.9%) required IMV after a failed NIV trial (NIV failure). From 2010 to 2019, the NIV only group increased from 9.6% to 43.1% and the IMV only group decreased from 80.1% to 34.2% (p < 0.001). The NIV failure group had the highest mortality compared with NIV only and IMV only (36.6% vs. 8.1%, vs. 30.5%, p < 0.001). However, risk-of-mortality (ROM) was highest in the IMV only group compared with NIV only and NIV failure (median Pediatric Risk of Mortality III ROM 8.1% vs. 2.8% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001). NIV failure patients also had the longest median PICU length of stay compared with the other two study groups (15.2 d vs. 6.1 and 9.0 d, p < 0.001). Higher age was associated with significantly decreased odds of NIV failure, and diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma was associated with significantly increased odds of NIV failure compared with acute lymphoid leukemia. For children with hematologic malignancy admitted to the PICU with ARF, NIV has replaced IMV as the most common initial therapy. NIV failure rate remains high with high-observed mortality despite lower PICU admission ROM.

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia: Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation, Intubation, and HFNT.

Severe acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a major issue in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Standard oxygen therapy is the first-line therapy for ARF in the less severe cases. However, respiratory supports may be delivered in more severe clinical condition. In cases with life-threatening ARF, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) will be required. Noninvasive strategies such as high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) by either face mask or helmet might cover the gap between standard oxygen and IMV. The objective of all the supporting measures for ARF is to gain time for the antimicrobial treatment to cure the pneumonia. There is uncertainty regarding which patients with severe CAP are most likely to benefit from each noninvasive support strategy. HFNT may be the first-line approach in the majority of patients. While NIV may be relatively contraindicated in patients with excessive secretions, facial hair/structure resulting in air leaks or poor compliance, NIV may be preferable in those with increased work of breathing, respiratory muscle fatigue, and congestive heart failure, in which the positive pressure of NIV may positively impact hemodynamics. A trial of NIV might be considered for select patients with hypoxemic ARF if there are no contraindications, with close monitoring by an experienced clinical team who can intubate patients promptly if they deteriorate. In such cases, individual clinician judgement is key to choose NIV, interface, and settings. Due to the paucity of studies addressing IMV in this population, the protective mechanical ventilation strategies recommended by guidelines for acute respiratory distress syndrome can be reasonably applied in patients with severe CAP.

Predictors of Non-invasive Ventilation Failure and Associated Factors Among the COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit.

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a method of oxygenation supply that eliminates the need for an endotracheal airway. Non-invasive ventilation failure is defined as the necessity for endotracheal intubation or death during the NIV trial. This study aimed to identify the predictors and associated factors of NIV failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study utilized electronic medical records of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. A total of 150 patients were included in the study. Patient demographics, medical history, laboratory tests, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate, acidosis, consciousness, oxygenation, and respiratory rate (HACOR score), and the ratio of oxygen saturation (ROX) index (the SpO2/fraction of inspired oxygen [FIO2] to respiratory rate [SF] ratio) were recorded. Non-invasive ventilation failure was determined based on the need for endotracheal intubation or cardiac-respiratory arrest while on NIV. Of 150 patients, 55.3% were male (mean age: 55.9 years), with an NIV failure rate of 67.3%, a mortality rate of 66.7%, and 3.3% of patients requiring tracheostomy after NIV failure. The ROX index consistently decreased over time, and an increase in the HACOR score and PCO2 after 6 hours of commencing NIV were the predictors of NIV failure. Additionally, higher levels of lactate dehydrogenase, lower SF ratios, and higher APACHE scores upon ICU admission were significantly associated with NIV failure. Notably, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) as an inflammatory index, SF ratio upon ICU admission, HACOR score, ROX index, and PCO2 after 12 hours were significant predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients receiving NIV. The ROX index, HACOR scale, and PCO2 are significant predictors of both NIV failure and in-hospital mortality.

Choosing Wisely and Promoting High-Value Care and Staff Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Large Safety Net System.

As the COVID-19 pandemic brought surges of hospitalized patients, it was important to focus on reducing overuse of tests and procedures to not only reduce potential harm to patients but also reduce unnecessary exposure to staff. The objective of this study was to create a Choosing Wisely in COVID-19 list to guide clinicians in practicing high-value care at our health system. A Choosing Wisely in COVID-19 list was developed in October 2020 by an interdisciplinary High Value Care Council at New York City Health + Hospitals, the largest public health system in the United States. The first phase involved gathering areas of overuse from interdisciplinary staff across the system. The second phase used a modified Delphi scoring process asking participants to rate recommendations on a 5-point Likert scale based on criteria of degree of evidence, potential to prevent patient harm, and potential to prevent staff harm. The top 5 recommendations included avoiding tracheal intubation without trial of noninvasive ventilation (4.4); not placing routine central venous catheters (4.33); avoiding routine daily laboratory tests and batching laboratory draws (4.19); not ordering daily chest radiographs (4.17); and not using bronchodilators in the absence of reactive airway disease (4.13). We successfully developed Choosing Wisely in COVID-19 recommendations that focus on evidence and preventing patient and staff harm in a large safety net system to reduce overuse.

Home Noninvasive Ventilation for COPD.

Patients with hypercapnic COPD appear to represent a phenotype driven by specific physiology including air trapping and mechanical disadvantage, sleep hypoventilation, and sleep apnea. Such individuals appear to be at high risk for adverse health outcomes. Home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to have the potential to help compensate for physiological issues underlying hypercapnia. In contrast to older literature, contemporary clinical trials of home NIV have been shown to improve patient-oriented outcomes including quality of life, hospitalizations, and mortality. Advancements in the use of NIV, including the use of higher inspiratory pressures, may account for recent success. Successful practical application of home NIV thus requires an adequate understanding of patient selection, devices and modes, and strategies for titration. The emergence of telemonitoring holds promise for further improvements in patient care by facilitating titration, promoting adherence, troubleshooting issues, and possibly predicting exacerbations. Given the complexity of home NIV, clinicians and health systems might consider establishment of dedicated home ventilation programs to provide such care. In addition, incorporation of respiratory therapist expertise is likely to improve success. Traditional fee-for-service structures have been a challenge for financing such programs, but ongoing changes toward value-based care are likely to make home NIV programs more feasible.

Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial

BackgroundLong-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment.ResultsAmong 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47–77] of predicted vs. 80% [71–88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53–70] vs. 80 [70–83], p = 0.01).ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients.Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020

A Retrospective Analysis of Ventilatory Strategy Comparing Non-invasive Ventilation (NIV) With Invasive Ventilation in Patients Admitted With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia.

Background The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India saw a sudden upsurge of critically ill patients getting admitted to the ICU. The guidance for respiratory support wasunclearin the early phase. But later reports showed lower mortality with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) than with intubation. The aim of this study was to assess the end result of initial methods of ventilation in COVID-19 patients. Methodology Patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19 were categorized as group 1 (IPPV-intubated within 24 hrs of admission), group 2 (NIV -NIV only), group 3 (NIV+ IPPV-intubated after 24 hrs), and group 4 (NRBM - Non-Rebreathing Mask only).All causes in the hospital or 30-day mortality, length of stay in ICU, and incidence of pneumothorax were compared between groups. Logistic regression analysis was done to determine the odds of mortality. Results The overall mortality rate among patients admitted to tertiary care centers was 15% and the rate among patients in ICU was 54.07%. Patients in group 1 and group 3 had significantly high mortality rates of 90.47% and 93.75%, respectively, as compared to 51.28% in group 2 patients. The odds of mortality were high in group 3 (OR 29.57, 95% CI 4.51 and 193.52) and group 1 (OR 8.01, 95% CI 1.35 and 47.48). Conclusion In a resource-limited setting, the use of NIV is associated with higher survival in COVID-19 patients. The prognosis of patients who are intubated early or after a trial of NIV is the same with increased odds of mortality.

Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients with Severe Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure: Non-Invasive Ventilation vs. Straight Intubation-A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Cohort Study.

The best timing for endotracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) remains debated. Aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hARF receiving either a trial of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or intubated with no prior attempt of NIV (“straight intubation”). All consecutive patients admitted to the 25 participating ICUs were included and divided in two groups: the “straight intubation” group and the “NIV” group. A propensity score matching was performed to correct for biases associated with the choice of the respiratory support. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of mechanical ventilation, hospital stay and reintubation rate. A total of 704 COVID-19 patients were admitted to ICUs during the study period. After matching, 141 patients were included in each group. No clinically relevant difference at ICU admission was found between groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the NIV group (22.0% vs. 36.2%), with no significant difference in secondary endpoints. There was no significant mortality difference between patients who received straight intubation and those intubated after NIV failure. In COVID-19 patients with hARF it is worth and safe attempting a trial of NIV prior to intubation.

A study on noninvasive ventilation in Type-II respiratory failure in a tertiary care center

Background: Type II respiratory failure is a common complication with considerable morbidity and mortality. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used preferentially with better results. The objective of this study was to assess the outcome and complications of NIV in type II respiratory failure patients. Methods: A clinical observational study of 67 consecutive adult patients with Type II respiratory failure who were assigned NIV, fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria were recruited in the study. NIV Bi level positive airway Pressure (Bi PAP) (spontaneous mode) was used in all patients with settings of 12/6 initially. Based on arterial blood gas values and clinical status, settings were adjusted and followed up as per British Thoracic Society guidelines (2016). In case of worsening of mental status, deterioration of potential of hydrogen (PH), increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and intolerance to NIV, patients were subjected to invasive ventilation within the first 4 h of NIV initiation. Results: Patients diagnosed with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (–92.5%), and cases of obstructive sleep apnea (7.5%), showed significant improvement in NIV trial over 24 h in 91.7% and 100%, respectively, by the way of reduction of PCO2 levels and improvement in partial pressure of oxygen, oxygen saturation, which was statistically significant in 89.5% of patients. Clinical improvement noted by the decrease in heart rate, respiratory rate was also statistically significant with a P < 001. However, PH did not show significant changes in our study. Conclusions: A trial of NIV is a useful alternative to mechanical ventilation in many different situations with Type II respiratory failure. Advantages of cost-effectiveness, minimal utilization of intensive care unit resources, low morbidity and mortality rates with patient-friendly equipment features contribute to its preference over invasive ventilation.

Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes of a Step Up Noninvasive Respiratory Support Strategy in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia.

The best noninvasive respiratory strategy in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is still discussed. We aimed at assessing the rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) if CPAP failed. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital length of stay (LOS). A retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted in intermediate-high dependency respiratory units of two Italian university hospitals. Consecutive patients with COVID-19 treated with CPAP were enrolled. Thoraco-abdominal asynchrony or hemodynamic instability led to ETI. Patients showing SpO2 ≤ 94%, respiratory rate ≥ 30 bpm or accessory muscle activation on CPAP received NIV. Respiratory distress and desaturation despite NIV eventually led to ETI. 156 patients were included. The overall rate of ETI was 30%, mortality 18% and median LOS 24 (17–32) days. Among patients that failed CPAP (n = 63), 28% were intubated, while the remaining 72% received NIV, of which 65% were intubated. Patients intubated after CPAP showed lower baseline PaO2/FiO2, lower lymphocyte counts and higher D-dimer values compared with patients intubated after CPAP + NIV. Mortality was 22% with CPAP + ETI, and 20% with CPAP + NIV + ETI. In the case of CPAP failure, a NIV trial appears feasible, does not deteriorate respiratory status and may reduce the need for ETI in COVID-19 patients.

Non-invasive ventilation: a safe and effective respiratory support method in hypoxemic acute respiratoryfailure due to pneumonia with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The benefit of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in cases of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (ARF) has already been proven. Still, its safety and efficacy as a respiratory support method for patients with hypoxemic ARF hasn't been studied so well. The aim of our study was to examine the safety and efficacy of NIV in hypoxemic ARF of primary lung origin. This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients with hypoxemic ARF due to communityacquired pneumonia with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated using NIV. They were divided into four groups: pneumonia without ARDS, mild, moderate, or severe ARDS. Their clinical and ABG parameters were recorded before initiation of NIV, at 1 hour and 24 hours after ventilation onset and at transition to non-intensive NIV or before endotracheal intubation in NIV failure cases. A total of 63 patients were included. NIV trial was successful in 85.71% of them, while 14.29% experienced NIV failure. In the general population, we observed a significant difference in PaO2/FiO2 only before transition to non-intensive NIV in comparison to the value at admission. This trend was seen in the patients with pneumonia without ARDS and moderate ARDS, but not in those with mild and severe ARDS. The clinical parameters showed improvement early in the course of treatment both in the entire study population and all subgroups. NIV is an effective and safe option for respiratory support in patients with severe CAP only when an adequate etiological treatment has been applied.

High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review

Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO 2 >6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO 2 clearance, the ability to communicate and comfort. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine whether HFNT in AT2RF improves 1) PaCO 2, 2) clinical and patient-centred outcomes and 3) to assess potential harms. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL (January 1999-January 2021). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing HFNT with low flow nasal oxygen (LFO) or NIV were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Ottawa-Newcastle scale for cohort studies. Results: From 727 publications reviewed, four RCTs and one cohort study (n=425) were included. In three trials of HFNT vs NIV, comparing PaCO 2 (kPa) at last follow-up time point, there was a significant reduction at four hours(1 RCT; HFNT median 6.7, IQR 5.6 - 7.7 vs NIV median 7.6, IQR 6.3 - 9.3) and no significant difference at 24-hours or five days. Comparing HFNT with LFO, there was no significant difference at 30-minutes. There was no difference in intubation or mortality. Conclusions: This review identified a small number of studies with low to very low certainty of evidence. A reduction of PaCO 2 at an early time point of four hours post-intervention was demonstrated in one small RCT. Significant limitations of the included studies were lack of adequately powered outcomes and clinically relevant time-points and small sample size. Accordingly, systematic review cannot recommend the use of HFNT as the initial management strategy for AT2RF and trials adequately powered to detect clinical and patient-relevant outcomes are urgently warranted.

Effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 related-acute respiratory distress syndrome.

IntroductionDuring this long COVID‐19 pandemic outbreak, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are being widely used to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). As for now, data on the efficacy of NIV in COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are lacking, and for this reason it is extremely important to accurately determine the outcomes of this strategy. This study aimed to evaluate clinical data and outcomes of NIV in patients with COVID‐19 ARDS.Matherials and methodsSeventy‐nine consecutive patients with sudden worsening of respiratory failure were evaluated. All patients (71% male) had a confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and signs, symptoms and radiological findings compatible with COVID‐19 pneumonia and all of them underwent a trial of NIV. Primary outcomes were NIV success and failure defined by intubation and mortality rate. Secondary outcome was the duration of NIV.ResultsNIV was successful in 38 (48.1%) patients (Table 1). EOT was necessary in 21 patients (26.6%). Death occurred in 20 patients (25.3%). In the group of patients having failed a trial with NIV and then being intubated, compared to those who continued NIV, there was no higher mortality rate. By evaluating the ICU survival outcome of the subgroup of patients intubated after NIV, 57% of the patients were discharged and 43% died.ConclusionPrevious studies conducted on patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation showed higher mortality rate than the present study. Our data showed that NIV can avoid intubation in almost half of the patients. Therefore, this data could reassure clinicians who would consider using NIV in COVID‐19 ARDS‐related treatment.

A scoring system derived from electronic health records to identify patients at high risk for noninvasive ventilation failure

ObjectiveTo develop and validate a clinical risk prediction score for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure defined as intubation after a trial of NIV in non-surgical patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study of a multihospital electronic health record database.PatientsNon-surgical adult patients receiving NIV as the first method of ventilation within two days of hospitalization.MeasurementPrimary outcome was intubation after a trial of NIV. We used a non-random split of the cohort based on year of admission for model development and validation. We included subjects admitted in years 2010–2014 to develop a risk prediction model and built a parsimonious risk scoring model using multivariable logistic regression. We validated the model in the cohort of subjects hospitalized in 2015 and 2016.Main resultsOf all the 47,749 patients started on NIV, 11.7% were intubated. Compared with NIV success, those who were intubated had worse mortality (25.2% vs. 8.9%). Strongest independent predictors for intubation were organ failure, principal diagnosis group (substance abuse/psychosis, neurological conditions, pneumonia, and sepsis), use of invasive ventilation in the prior year, low body mass index, and tachypnea. The c-statistic was 0.81, 0.80 and 0.81 respectively, in the derivation, validation and full cohorts. We constructed three risk categories of the scoring system built on the full cohort; the median and interquartile range of risk of intubation was: 2.3% [1.9%–2.8%] for low risk group; 9.3% [6.3%–13.5%] for intermediate risk category; and 35.7% [31.0%–45.8%] for high risk category.ConclusionsIn patients started on NIV, we found that in addition to factors known to be associated with intubation, neurological, substance abuse, or psychiatric diagnoses were highly predictive for intubation. The prognostic score that we have developed may provide quantitative guidance for decision-making in patients who are started on NIV.

Predicting Failure of Non-Invasive Ventilation With RAM Cannula in Bronchiolitis.

In infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis on non-invasive ventilation (NIV) via the RAM cannula nasal interface, variables predicting subsequent intubation, or NIV non-response, are understudied. We sought to identify predictors of NIV non-response. We performed a retrospective cohort study in infants admitted for respiratory failure from bronchiolitis placed on NIV in a quaternary children's hospital. We excluded children with concurrent sepsis, critical congenital heart disease, or with preexisting tracheostomy. The primary outcome was NIV non-response defined as intubation after a trial of NIV. Secondary outcomes were vital sign values before and after NIV initiation, duration of NIV and intubation, and mortality. Primary analyses included Chi-square, Wilcoxon rank-sum, student's t test, paired analyses, and adjusted and unadjusted logistic regression assessing heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) before and after NIV initiation. Of 138 infants studied, 34% were non-responders. There were no differences in baseline characteristics of responders and non-responders. HR decreased after NIV initiation in responders (156 [143-156] to149 [141-158], p < 0.01) compared to non-responders (158 [149-166] to 158 [145-171], p = 0.73). RR decreased in responders (50 [43-58] vs 47 [41-54]) and non-responders (52 [48-58] vs 51 [40-55], both p < 0.01). Concurrent bacterial pneumonia (OR 6.06, 95% CI: 2.54-14.51) and persistently elevated HR (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07) were associated with NIV non-response. In children with acute bronchiolitis who fail to respond to NIV and require subsequent intubation, we noted associations with persistently elevated HR after NIV initiation and concurrent bacterial pneumonia.

Clinical practices related to high-flow nasal cannulas in pediatric critical care in Brazil compared to other countries: a Brazilian survey.

ObjetivoDescrever as práticas clínicas atuais relacionadas à utilização de cânula nasal de alto fluxo por intensivistas pediátricos brasileiros e compará-las com as de outros países.MétodosPara o estudo principal, foi administrado um questionário a intensivistas pediátricos em países das Américas do Norte e do Sul, Ásia, Europa e Austrália/Nova Zelândia. Comparou-se a coorte brasileira com coortes dos Estados Unidos, Canadá, Reino Unido e Índia.ResultadosResponderam ao questionário 501 médicos, dos quais 127 eram do Brasil. Apenas 63,8% dos participantes brasileiros tinham disponibilidade de cânula nasal de alto fluxo, em contraste com 100% dos participantes no Reino Unido, no Canadá e nos Estados Unidos. Coube ao médico responsável a decisão de iniciar a utilização de uma cânula nasal de alto fluxo segundo responderam 61,2% dos brasileiros, 95,5% dos localizados no Reino Unido, 96,6% dos participantes dos Estados Unidos, 96,8% dos médicos canadenses e 84,7% dos participantes da Índia; 62% dos participantes do Brasil, 96,3% do Reino Unido, 96,6% dos Estados Unidos, 96,8% do Canadá e 84,7% da Índia relataram que o médico responsável era quem definia o desmame ou modificava as regulagens da cânula nasal de alto fluxo. Quando ocorreu falha da cânula nasal de alto fluxo por desconforto respiratório ou insuficiência respiratória, 82% dos participantes do Brasil considerariam uma tentativa com ventilação não invasiva antes da intubação endotraqueal, em comparação com 93% do Reino Unido, 88% dos Estados Unidos, 91,5% do Canadá e 76,8% da Índia. Mais intensivistas brasileiros (6,5%) do que do Reino Unido, Estados Unidos e Índia (1,6% para todos) afirmaram utilizar sedativos com frequência concomitantemente à cânula nasal de alto fluxo.ConclusãoA disponibilidade de cânulas nasais de alto fluxo no Brasil ainda não é difundida. Há algumas divergências nas práticas clínicas entre intensivistas brasileiros e seus colegas estrangeiros, principalmente nos processos e nas tomadas de decisão relacionados a iniciar e desmamar o tratamento com cânula nasal de alto fluxo.

Deciding when to use BiPAP for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD

A clinical decision report appraising Carrera M, Marín JM, Antón A, et al. A controlled trial of noninvasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. J Crit Care. 2009;24(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2008.08.007

National survey of feasibility of NIV trials for management of children with bronchiolitis

BackgroundBronchiolitis is a major cause of admission to hospital in children. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is routinely used...