Comparative study on pros and cons of sequential high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation immediately following early extubated patients with severe respiratory failure due to acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20210623-00939
- VernacularTitle:AECOPD致严重呼吸衰竭患者早期拔管后序贯经鼻高流量湿化氧疗与无创正压通气的优劣比较
- Author:
Guoqiang FANG
1
;
Qiufeng WAN
;
Yajie TIAN
;
Wenting JIA
;
Xi LUO
;
Ting YANG
;
Yujiao SHI
;
Xingli GU
;
Sicheng XU
Author Information
1. 新疆医科大学第一附属医院呼吸与危重症医学中心RICU，乌鲁木齐 830054
- Keywords:
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
Respiratory failure;
Post-extubated;
High-flow nasal cannula;
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2021;33(10):1215-1220
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the pros and cons of sequential high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) immediately following early extubated patients with severe respiratory failure (SRF) due to acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), so as to provide evidence for clinical selection of optimal scheme.Methods:Consecutive AECOPD patients admitted to the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2019 to September 2020 were screened for enrollment. Patients were between 40 years old and 85 years old with acute exacerbation of bronchial-pulmonary infection, who received endotracheal intubation mechanical ventilation (ETI-MV) as the initial respiratory support method. The pattern of synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) was used in the study. The parameters were set as follows: tidal volume (VT) 8 mL/kg, support pressure 10-15 cmH 2O (1 cmH 2O = 0.098 kPa), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 4-6 cmH 2O and the ratio of inspiratory to expiratory time 1.5-2.5∶1. Under these conditions, the plateau pressure (Pplat) was maintained less than 30 cmH 2O. The minimum fraction of inspired oxygen was adjusted to keep the pulse oxygen saturation no less than 0.92. When the pulmonary infection control window (PIC window) occurred, the subjects were extubated immediately and randomly divided into two groups, with one group receiving HFNC (called HFNC group), the other group receiving NIPPV (called NIPPV group). Patients with failed sequential HFNC or NIPPV underwent tracheal re-intubation. The rate of tracheal re-intubation within 7 days of extubation, complications (such as nose and face crush injury and gastric distension), in-hospital mortality, duration of ETI before PIC window, length of RICU stay and length of hospital stay were compared, respectively. Results:Forty-four patients were enrolled in the study, 20 in the HFNC group and 24 in the NIPPV group. There was no significant difference in the duration of ETI before PIC window between HFNC and NIPPV groups (hours: 95.9±13.1 vs. 91.8±20.4, P > 0.05). The rate of tracheal re-intubation within 7 days in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that in the NIPPV group [35.0% (7/20) vs. 4.2 % (1/24), P < 0.05]. However, the incidence of complication in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIPPV group [0% (0/20) vs. 25.0% (6/24), P < 0.05]. Compared with the NIPPV group, the in-hospital mortality in the HFNC group was slightly higher [5.0% (1/20) vs. 4.2% (1/24)], the length of RICU stay (days: 19.5±10.8 vs. 15.5±7.2) and the length of hospital stay (days: 27.4±12.2 vs. 23.3±10.9) were slightly longer, without statistical differences (all P > 0.05). Conclusion:For early extubated patients with SRF due to AECOPD, the compliance of sequential HFNC increased and the complications decreased significantly, but the final effect may be worse than sequential NIPPV.
