Cargando…

Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review

BACKGROUND: Use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduced postextubation respiratory failure (PERF) and reintubation rate compared to use of a low-flow oxygen system (LFOS) in low-risk patients. However, no obvious conclusion was reached for high-risk patients. Here, we sought to present the curre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Minhyeok, Kim, Ji Hye, Jeong, In Beom, Son, Ji Woong, Na, Moon Jun, Kwon, Sun Jung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6849042/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31723906
http://dx.doi.org/10.4266/acc.2018.00311
_version_ 1783469125656379392
author Lee, Minhyeok
Kim, Ji Hye
Jeong, In Beom
Son, Ji Woong
Na, Moon Jun
Kwon, Sun Jung
author_facet Lee, Minhyeok
Kim, Ji Hye
Jeong, In Beom
Son, Ji Woong
Na, Moon Jun
Kwon, Sun Jung
author_sort Lee, Minhyeok
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduced postextubation respiratory failure (PERF) and reintubation rate compared to use of a low-flow oxygen system (LFOS) in low-risk patients. However, no obvious conclusion was reached for high-risk patients. Here, we sought to present the current status of HFNC use as adjunctive oxygen therapy in a clinical setting and to elucidate the nature of the protective effect following extubation. METHODS: The medical records of 855 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit of single university hospital during a period of 5.5 years were analyzed retrospectively, with only 118 patients ultimately included in the present research. The baseline characteristics of these patients and the occurrence of PERF and reintubation along with physiologic changes were analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients underwent HFNC, and the remaining 34 patients underwent conventional LFOS after extubation. Physicians preferred HFNC to LFOS in the face of high-risk features including old age, neurologic disease, moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a long duration of mechanical ventilation, low baseline arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, and a high baseline alveolar–arterial oxygen difference. The reintubation rate at 72 hours after extubation was not different (9.5% vs. 8.8%; P=1.000). Hypoxic respiratory failure was slightly higher in the nonreintubation group than in the reintubation group (31.9% vs. 6.7%; P=0.058). Regarding physiologic effects, heart rate was only stabilized after 24 hours of extubation in the HFNC group. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the occurrence of PERF and reintubation between both groups. It is worth noting that similar PERF and reintubation ratios were shown in the HFNC group in those with certain exacerbating risk factors versus not. Caution is needed regarding delayed reintubation in the HFNC group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6849042
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68490422019-11-13 Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review Lee, Minhyeok Kim, Ji Hye Jeong, In Beom Son, Ji Woong Na, Moon Jun Kwon, Sun Jung Acute Crit Care Original Article BACKGROUND: Use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduced postextubation respiratory failure (PERF) and reintubation rate compared to use of a low-flow oxygen system (LFOS) in low-risk patients. However, no obvious conclusion was reached for high-risk patients. Here, we sought to present the current status of HFNC use as adjunctive oxygen therapy in a clinical setting and to elucidate the nature of the protective effect following extubation. METHODS: The medical records of 855 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit of single university hospital during a period of 5.5 years were analyzed retrospectively, with only 118 patients ultimately included in the present research. The baseline characteristics of these patients and the occurrence of PERF and reintubation along with physiologic changes were analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients underwent HFNC, and the remaining 34 patients underwent conventional LFOS after extubation. Physicians preferred HFNC to LFOS in the face of high-risk features including old age, neurologic disease, moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a long duration of mechanical ventilation, low baseline arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, and a high baseline alveolar–arterial oxygen difference. The reintubation rate at 72 hours after extubation was not different (9.5% vs. 8.8%; P=1.000). Hypoxic respiratory failure was slightly higher in the nonreintubation group than in the reintubation group (31.9% vs. 6.7%; P=0.058). Regarding physiologic effects, heart rate was only stabilized after 24 hours of extubation in the HFNC group. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was found in the occurrence of PERF and reintubation between both groups. It is worth noting that similar PERF and reintubation ratios were shown in the HFNC group in those with certain exacerbating risk factors versus not. Caution is needed regarding delayed reintubation in the HFNC group. Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine 2019-02 2019-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6849042/ /pubmed/31723906 http://dx.doi.org/10.4266/acc.2018.00311 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Minhyeok
Kim, Ji Hye
Jeong, In Beom
Son, Ji Woong
Na, Moon Jun
Kwon, Sun Jung
Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review
title Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review
title_full Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review
title_fullStr Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review
title_full_unstemmed Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review
title_short Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review
title_sort protecting postextubation respiratory failure and reintubation by high-flow nasal cannula compared to low-flow oxygen system: single center retrospective study and literature review
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6849042/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31723906
http://dx.doi.org/10.4266/acc.2018.00311
work_keys_str_mv AT leeminhyeok protectingpostextubationrespiratoryfailureandreintubationbyhighflownasalcannulacomparedtolowflowoxygensystemsinglecenterretrospectivestudyandliteraturereview
AT kimjihye protectingpostextubationrespiratoryfailureandreintubationbyhighflownasalcannulacomparedtolowflowoxygensystemsinglecenterretrospectivestudyandliteraturereview
AT jeonginbeom protectingpostextubationrespiratoryfailureandreintubationbyhighflownasalcannulacomparedtolowflowoxygensystemsinglecenterretrospectivestudyandliteraturereview
AT sonjiwoong protectingpostextubationrespiratoryfailureandreintubationbyhighflownasalcannulacomparedtolowflowoxygensystemsinglecenterretrospectivestudyandliteraturereview
AT namoonjun protectingpostextubationrespiratoryfailureandreintubationbyhighflownasalcannulacomparedtolowflowoxygensystemsinglecenterretrospectivestudyandliteraturereview
AT kwonsunjung protectingpostextubationrespiratoryfailureandreintubationbyhighflownasalcannulacomparedtolowflowoxygensystemsinglecenterretrospectivestudyandliteraturereview