TY - JOUR
T1 - Switches in non-invasive respiratory support strategies during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure
T2 - Need to monitoring from a retrospective observational study
AU - Parrilla-Gómez, Francisco José
AU - Marin-Corral, Judith
AU - Castellví-Font, Andrea
AU - Pérez-Terán, Purificación
AU - Picazo, Lucía
AU - Ravelo-Barba, Jorge
AU - Campano-García, Marta
AU - Festa, Olimpia
AU - Restrepo, Marcos
AU - Masclans, Joan Ramón
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y SEMICYUC
PY - 2024/4
Y1 - 2024/4
N2 - Objective: To explore combined non-invasive-respiratory-support (NIRS) patterns, reasons for NIRS switching, and their potential impact on clinical outcomes in acute-hypoxemic-respiratory-failure (AHRF) patients. Design: Retrospective, single-center observational study. Setting: Intensive Care Medicine. Patients: AHRF patients (cardiac origin and respiratory acidosis excluded) underwent combined NIRS therapies such as non-invasive-ventilation (NIV) and High-Flow-Nasal-Cannula (HFNC). Interventions: Patients were classified based on the first NIRS switch performed (HFNC-to-NIV or NIV-to-HFNC), and further specific NIRS switching strategies (NIV trial-like vs. Non-NIV trial-like and single vs. multiples switches) were independently evaluated. Main variables of interest: Reasons for switching, NIRS failure and mortality rates. Results: A total of 63 patients with AHRF were included, receiving combined NIRS, 58.7% classified in the HFNC-to-NIV group and 41.3% in the NIV-to-HFNC group. Reason for switching from HFNC to NIV was AHRF worsening (100%), while from NIV to HFNC was respiratory improvement (76.9%). NIRS failure rates were higher in the HFNC-to-NIV than in NIV-to-HFNC group (81% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). Among HFNC-to-NIV patients, there was no difference in the failure rate between the NIV trial-like and non-NIV trial-like groups (86% vs. 78%, p = 0.575) but the mortality rate was significantly lower in NIV trial-like group (14% vs. 52%, p = 0.02). Among NIV to HFNC patients, NIV failure was lower in the single switch group compared to the multiple switches group (15% vs. 53%, p = 0.039), with a shorter length of stay (5 [2–8] vs. 12 [8–30] days, p = 0.001). Conclusions: NIRS combination is used in real life and both switches’ strategies, HFNC to NIV and NIV to HFNC, are common in AHRF management. Transitioning from HFNC to NIV is suggested as a therapeutic escalation and in this context performance of a NIV-trial could be beneficial. Conversely, switching from NIV to HFNC is suggested as a de-escalation strategy that is deemed safe if there is no NIRS failure.
AB - Objective: To explore combined non-invasive-respiratory-support (NIRS) patterns, reasons for NIRS switching, and their potential impact on clinical outcomes in acute-hypoxemic-respiratory-failure (AHRF) patients. Design: Retrospective, single-center observational study. Setting: Intensive Care Medicine. Patients: AHRF patients (cardiac origin and respiratory acidosis excluded) underwent combined NIRS therapies such as non-invasive-ventilation (NIV) and High-Flow-Nasal-Cannula (HFNC). Interventions: Patients were classified based on the first NIRS switch performed (HFNC-to-NIV or NIV-to-HFNC), and further specific NIRS switching strategies (NIV trial-like vs. Non-NIV trial-like and single vs. multiples switches) were independently evaluated. Main variables of interest: Reasons for switching, NIRS failure and mortality rates. Results: A total of 63 patients with AHRF were included, receiving combined NIRS, 58.7% classified in the HFNC-to-NIV group and 41.3% in the NIV-to-HFNC group. Reason for switching from HFNC to NIV was AHRF worsening (100%), while from NIV to HFNC was respiratory improvement (76.9%). NIRS failure rates were higher in the HFNC-to-NIV than in NIV-to-HFNC group (81% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). Among HFNC-to-NIV patients, there was no difference in the failure rate between the NIV trial-like and non-NIV trial-like groups (86% vs. 78%, p = 0.575) but the mortality rate was significantly lower in NIV trial-like group (14% vs. 52%, p = 0.02). Among NIV to HFNC patients, NIV failure was lower in the single switch group compared to the multiple switches group (15% vs. 53%, p = 0.039), with a shorter length of stay (5 [2–8] vs. 12 [8–30] days, p = 0.001). Conclusions: NIRS combination is used in real life and both switches’ strategies, HFNC to NIV and NIV to HFNC, are common in AHRF management. Transitioning from HFNC to NIV is suggested as a therapeutic escalation and in this context performance of a NIV-trial could be beneficial. Conversely, switching from NIV to HFNC is suggested as a de-escalation strategy that is deemed safe if there is no NIRS failure.
KW - Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure
KW - Acute respiratory failure
KW - High Flow Nasal Cannula
KW - NIRS patterns
KW - Non-invasive respiratory support
KW - Non-invasive ventilation
KW - Pneumonia
KW - Switching strategies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85188158162&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85188158162&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.medin.2023.10.010
DO - 10.1016/j.medin.2023.10.010
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85188158162
SN - 0210-5691
VL - 48
SP - 200
EP - 210
JO - Medicina Intensiva
JF - Medicina Intensiva
IS - 4
ER -