Exploratory study on the application of nasal high-flow oxygen therapy during breaks off noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2020.08.005
- VernacularTitle:经鼻高流量氧疗在慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重无创正压通气间歇期应用的探索性研究
- Author:
Dingyu TAN
1
;
Bingyu LING
;
Yan XU
;
Yunyun WANG
;
Jun XU
;
Bingxia WANG
;
Peng CAO
;
Xueqin SHAN
;
Qingcheng ZHU
;
Ping GENG
Author Information
1. 江苏省苏北人民医院急诊科，225001 扬州
- From:
Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine
2020;29(8):1046-1052
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
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.
