Experts on Air

Quando passar de HFOT para intubação em IRHA? Uma decisão crucial

Webinar n.º 4

Q&A Webinar n.º 4.

Muitos estudos observacionais sugeriram que NHF evita a intubação. A impressão clínica foi demonstrada de forma inequívoca em um estudo randomizado de grande escala (Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al. High‑flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2185‑2196. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa15033261​). Neste estudo, os pacientes com maior risco de intubação (ou seja, pacientes com PaO2/FiO2 inferior a 200) e que receberam NHF foram significativamente menos intubados do que aqueles que receberam VNI ou oxigênio padrão. Mais recentemente, inúmeros estudos realizados em SARA relacionada à COVID confirmaram a prevenção da intubação com o uso de NHF (Grupo COVID‑ICU, para a rede REVA, investigadores COVID‑ICU. Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID‑19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID‑ICU) in 137 hospitals. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):421. Published 2021 Dec 8. doi:10.1186/s13054‑021‑03784‑22​, ​Ospina‑Tascón GA, Calderón‑Tapia LE, García AF, et al. Effect of High‑Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID‑19: A Randomized Clinical Trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2022 Mar 15;327(11):1093]. JAMA. 2021;326(21):2161‑2171. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.207143​).

De referir que os dados são menos conclusivos em pacientes com doenças hematológicas ou oncológicas.
 

Se a pergunta poder ser interpretada como "É razoável começar NHF e talvez escalar para ventilação invasiva em pacientes com mais de 65 anos de idade", a resposta é sim. Contudo, os pacientes e a família devem ser informados que o prognóstico é muito menos favorável do que em pacientes mais jovens. Minha opinião é que a intubação deve ser discutida individualmente para pacientes acima dos 70‑75 anos, dependendo da presença de comorbidades e da condição física do paciente antes de ser infectado pela COVID.

Sim, por pelo menos dois motivos. Primeiro, apesar de existir ‑ a um nível coorte ‑ uma relação entre a importância do envolvimento pulmonar e o resultado, a um nível individual, por vezes tivemos uma recuperação muito rápida, apesar de uma avaliação radiológica inicial desfavorável. Em segundo lugar, o fenótipo radiológico também desempenha um papel importante (tínhamos a impressão de que o vidro fosco muito difuso era menos "mau" do que a consolidação). E, por fim, mesmo que o paciente esteja sob alto risco de intubação, NHF pode ser iniciado e ajudará a pré‑oxigenar o paciente, servindo como oxigenação apneica durante a laringoscopia.  

Não tenho ainda qualquer experiência pessoal com 100 l/min. Minha opinião é que, como existe uma relação linear entre o fluxo e a pressão positiva e a eliminação de espaço morto, isto sugere que os efeitos benéficos de NHF são mais importantes em fluxos de 100 l/min do que fluxos de 60. Obviamente, a questão da tolerância continua a ser fundamental. Precisamos de mais dados sobre a tolerância destes fluxos muito altos.

Essa é uma questão muito ampla e diversas conferências de consenso foram dedicadas à mesma. Tenha em conta vários fatores: 1) Não existe teste ou grupo de parâmetros 100% seguro que preveja a extubação segura; 2) A reintubação ocorrerá em 10% a 20% dos pacientes; 3) Extubações não planejadas não levam sistematicamente à reintubação (somente aprox. 40%). Isto significa que nós, como médicos, devemos permanecer modestos quanto à nossa capacidade de prever o resultado da extubação. Realize sempre um teste com uma peça em T ou um teste de respiratória espontânea com suporte de pressão mínima. Quando começar estes testes? Após a resolução parcial ou completa do motivo que levou à intubação. Estabilidade hemodinâmica sem vasopressores, FiO2 < 40%, PEEP < 5, sem ou pouco comprometimento neurológico e cognitivo, tosse adequada, sem ou pouca fraqueza muscular. 

Aviso de Isenção de Responsabilidade

Os conteúdos desta página são apenas para fins informativos e não se destinam a substituir a formação profissional ou as diretrizes de tratamento padrão em sua instituição. As respostas às perguntas desta página foram preparadas pelo palestrante do respectivo webinar;  quaisquer recomendações feitas aqui relativamente à prática clínica ou ao uso de produtos, tecnologias ou tratamentos específicos representam apenas a opinião pessoal do palestrante , e não devem ser consideradas como recomendações oficiais feitas pela Hamilton Medical AG. A Hamilton Medical AG não oferece qualquer garantia a respeito das informações contidas nesta página e a adoção de qualquer parte das mesmas é exclusivamente por sua conta e risco.

We have detected that you are visiting our website from Estados Unidos.
We offer a separate version of the website for your country (Estados Unidos).

Switch to Estados Unidos

High‑flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al. High‑flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2185‑2196. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1503326



BACKGROUND

Whether noninvasive ventilation should be administered in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. Therapy with high‑flow oxygen through a nasal cannula may offer an alternative in patients with hypoxemia.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, open-label trial in which we randomly assigned patients without hypercapnia who had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less to high-flow oxygen therapy, standard oxygen therapy delivered through a face mask, or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients intubated at day 28; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality in the intensive care unit and at 90 days and the number of ventilator-free days at day 28.

RESULTS

A total of 310 patients were included in the analyses. The intubation rate (primary outcome) was 38% (40 of 106 patients) in the high-flow-oxygen group, 47% (44 of 94) in the standard group, and 50% (55 of 110) in the noninvasive-ventilation group (P=0.18 for all comparisons). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was significantly higher in the high-flow-oxygen group (24±8 days, vs. 22±10 in the standard-oxygen group and 19±12 in the noninvasive-ventilation group; P=0.02 for all comparisons). The hazard ratio for death at 90 days was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.99) with standard oxygen versus high-flow oxygen (P=0.046) and 2.50 (95% CI, 1.31 to 4.78) with noninvasive ventilation versus high-flow oxygen (P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with high-flow oxygen, standard oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation did not result in significantly different intubation rates. There was a significant difference in favor of high-flow oxygen in 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interrégional 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; FLORALI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01320384.).

Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID‑19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID‑ICU) in 137 hospitals.

COVID‑ICU group, for the REVA network, COVID‑ICU investigators. Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID‑19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID‑ICU) in 137 hospitals. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):421. Published 2021 Dec 8. doi:10.1186/s13054‑021‑03784‑2



RATIONAL

To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high‑flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID‑19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78-3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79-4.21, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.

Effect of High‑Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID‑19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ospina‑Tascón GA, Calderón‑Tapia LE, García AF, et al. Effect of High‑Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID‑19: A Randomized Clinical Trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2022 Mar 15;327(11):1093]. JAMA. 2021;326(21):2161‑2171. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.20714



IMPORTANCE

The effect of high‑flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID‑19.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.