Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale OneFile: Nursing and Allied Health Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Early Emergency Department Management of Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure Due to Cardiogenic Pulmonary

Edema.

Authors: Nicolas Marjanovic, Alexandre Flacher, Loic Drouet, Aude Le Gouhinec, Hakim Said and Jean-Francois Vigneau Date: Sept. 2020

From: Respiratory Care(Vol. 65, Issue 9) Publisher: Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Document Type: Clinical report Length: 5,282 words DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4187/respcare.07278

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is the recommended ventilatory support for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) associated with acute respiratory failure or hypercapnia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has emerged as an alternative to NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We aimed to assess the efficacy of HFNC on early changes in [mathematical expression not reproducible] and respiratory parameters in patients in the emergency department with acute hypercapnic CPE and to compare it to NIV. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in consecutive emergency department patients with acute hypercapnic CPE. Subjects received either HFNCor NIV, according to the attending emergency physician's expertise in HFNC. The primary outcome was change in [mathematical expression not reproducible] after treatment for 1 h. Secondary outcomes were change in pH, breathing frequency, signs of work of breathing, and comparisons to NIV. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subjects with a discharge diagnosis of hypercapnic CPE were analyzed. Subjects had a median age of 87 y (interquartile range [IQR] 78-93); 37% were male. Twelve (44%) received HFNC, and 15 (56%) received NIV. Median of changes in [mathematical expression not reproducible] from baseline to after 1 h of treatment were 7 mm Hg (IQR 4-11, P = .002) for HFNC and 3 mm Hg (IQR 1-8, P = .02) for NIV, with no between-group difference. pH, breathing frequency and signs of work of breathing also improved after both HFNC and NIV. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that HFNC treatment for 1 h improves [mathematical expression not reproducible] and respiratory parameters in subjects with hypercapnic acute CPE in a manner that is comparable to NIV. Further studies are needed to assess HFNC as a possible alternative to NIV in early management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure of cardiogenic origin. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03883555.) Key words: respiratory insufficiency; cardiogenic pulmonary edema/heart failure; noninvasive ventilation; high-flow nasal cannula; emergency medicine. [Respir Care 2020; 65(9):1241-1249. [c] 2020 Daedalus Enterprises]

Introduction

Acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) is one of the main diagnoses for patients admitted for dyspnea in emergency departments. (1) Severe CPE is associated with respiratory failure and hypercapnia in about 40% of patients. (2-4) Hypercapnia may lead to altered consciousness and central apnea, and it may be associated with higher intubation and in- hospital mortality rates. (5-7)

Noninvasive ventilatory support, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or CPAP, is recommended as a first-line treatment for acute hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure associated with acute CPE, along with intravenous diuretics and a nitrate derivative. (6,8,9) NIV improves alveoli recruitment, decreases work of breathing (WOB), and improves cardiac output. Consequently, NIV allows rapid correction of respiratory and blood gas parameters in acute CPE and contributes to a reduced intubation rate and improved in-hospital mortality compared to standard oxygen therapy. (10) However, NIV may be poorly tolerated in certain patients, in whom it is associated with failure of treatment and poor outcomes. (11-13)

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) represents another strategy in the ventilatory management of patients with acute respiratory failure. (6,14) HFNC delivers a heated and humidified air-oxygen blend through a nasal cannula. It achieves flows up to 60 L/min and [mathematical expression not reproducible] ranging from 0.21 to 1.0, both of which can be adapted to patient needs. Its effects are mediated through the delivery of PEEP and dead space washout. (15-18) HFNC is usually easier to apply and is better tolerated than NIV. (19) In adults, HFNC has beenevaluated in ICU and postoperative settings in comparison toNIV and standard oxygen therapy for the treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure. (20) Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation. (21) Its benefits over NIV with regard to intubation rate and mortality still require confirmation. (22-24) HFNC is emerging as an alternative strategy in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of heterogeneous etiologies. However, it has scarcely been explored in the treatment of select hypercapnic respiratory failure or in the context of early emergency department management. (25-28) In the emergency department setting, HFNC has been reported to be noninferior to NIV in preventing endotracheal intubation in unselected emergency department subjects with acute respiratory failure, as well as in the subgroup of subjects with acute decompensated heart failure. (29,30) HFNC has also been reported to lower 60-min breathing frequency compared to standard oxygen therapy in a randomized controlled trial of 128 subjects with mild acute CPE in the emergency department. (31) Recent evidence from 2 retrospective studies and secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial suggest that HFNC may be effective in treating hypercapnia in subgroups of subjects with hypercapnic respiratory failure of all causes. (29,32,33) To our knowledge, no prospective study to date has examined the benefits of HFNC treatment in early management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in an emergency department.

We aimed to evaluate HFNC as a possible alternative to NIV in emergency department patients with acute hypercapnic CPE, assessing its efficacy with regard to early changes in [mathematical expression not reproducible], respiratory parameters, and indirect signs of WOB and comparing it to NIV.

Methods

Study Design and Setting

We conducted a prospective, observational, and comparative study in the emergency department of Montpellier University Hospital with an annual census of 82,000 patients. This study was conducted as a preliminary study to the randomized controlled OPTICAP study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02874339). Our institutional review board approved the study (IRB- MTP-12-03) with a waiver of written informed consent because the procedures were all part of routine care. It was designed and reported according to STROBE guidelines.

This study was intended as a study preliminary to a larger randomized controlled trial. Because of the novelty of the study and the lack of available data on the effect of HFNC on [mathematical expression not reproducible] at the time of study design, the sample size was calculated based on data available for NIV. We planned to include 16 subjects in each group so as to be able to show a significant 5 mm Hg decrease in [mathematical expression not reproducible], with an alpha of 5% and a study power of 80%.

Selection of Participants

Adult patients admitted to the emergency department for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure related to acute CPE from February 2015 to September 2016 were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were: (1) signs of acute respiratory failure including breathing frequency of at least 20 breaths/min, useof accessory respiratory muscles or paradoxical abdominal movement, or associated high blood pressure; (2) clinical suspicion of acute CPE based on a history of acute CPE, bilateral crackles on chest examination, or bilateral infiltrates compatible with pulmonary edema on chest radiograph; (3) and hypercapnia defined as [mathematical expression not reproducible] > 45 mm Hg on arterial blood gas testing.

The main exclusion criteria were clinical suspicion of exacerbation of COPD, long-term oxygen therapy or ventilatory support for chronic lung disease, clinical suspicion of sepsis at admission including fever > 38.5[degrees]C, contraindication to NIV according to international guidelines (9) for NIV treatment including hemodynamic instability (mean arterial pressure < 65 mm Hg, use of vasopressors) or a Glasgow coma scale score [less than or equal to] 12 points, requirement for endotracheal intubation, and use of ventilatory support prior to inclusion, including CPAP or NIV administered before admission to the hospital.

Ventilatory Support Modalities

Subject management was performed according to our standard of care for the management of respiratory failure. A tour emergency department, HFNC was used as an alternative ventilatory support to NIV in patients showing signs of respiratory failure; NIV was applied with careful monitoring to prevent escalation to invasive ventilation. Subjects received either NIV or HFNC according to the presence of an attending emergency physician with expertise in using HFNC. Standardized protocols were implemented for both NIV and HFNC treatment.

HFNC was administered via large- or medium-bore binasal prongs, using an Airvo2 system (Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, Courtabeuf, France). Flow was initially set at 60 L/min, temperature was set at 37[degrees]C, and [mathematical expression not reproducible] was adjusted to maintain a target [mathematical expression not reproducible] of at least 92%. Flow, [mathematical expression not reproducible], and temperature could be adjusted to patient tolerance, as recommended.

NIV was administered through a face mask or oronasal mask(Respironics, Philips Healthcare, France), in a pressure controlled continuous spontaneous ventilation mode using a dedicated device (Monnal T60 and T75, Airliquide Medical Systems, Antony, France). Initial settings were: PEEP 5-10 cm [H.sub.2]O, pressure support 6-10 cm [H.sub.2]O above PEEP, and [mathematical expression not reproducible] adjusted to a target [S.sub.p][O.sub.2] of at least 92%. Both ventilatory treatments were applied in 1-h sessions and resumed as needed, according to international guidelines for NIV treatment. (9) Subjects were closely monitored, with repeat clinical evaluation every 15 min and serial blood gas testing every hour. Standard oxygen therapy was administered as required to maintain a target [S.sub.p][O.sub.2] of at least 92% between sessions or at termination. Oxygen was delivered by nasal cannula or nonrebreather mask. Ventilatory support sessions were ended if signs of acute respiratoryfailure had resolved or when endotracheal intubation criteria had been met.

Prespecified criteria for endotracheal intubation were used to avoid the risk of delayed intubation: hemodynamic instability, deterioration of neurologic status, or signs of persisting or worsening respiratory failure as defined by at least 2 of the following criteria: breathing frequency > 40 breaths/min,lack of improvement in signs of high respiratory muscle work load, and [S.sub.p][O.sub.2] < 90% despite high [mathematical expression not reproducible] (ie,[mathematical expression not reproducible] > 0.80). (14) All subjects received concomitant standard medical therapy for CPE, including intravenous diuretics and nitrate derivative.

Outcome Measurements

This was a preliminary study aimed at exploring the value of HFNC in the setting of hypercapnia. We chose [mathematical expression not reproducible], which is an objective measurement, as the primary outcome. We evaluated its change at an early time point, ie, at 1 h after initiation of ventilatory support. Secondary outcomes were change in breathing frequency, signs of increased WOB, results of blood gas analysis, and comparisons between HFNC and NIV. All outcome criteria were measured via serial evaluation performed at baseline and at 5-10 min after the end of each 1-h ventilatory session, with the subject receiving standard oxygen therapy as required to maintain a target [S.sub.p][O.sub.2] of at least 92%, according to our standard of care and international guidelines. (9)

Arterial blood gas testing was carried out according to clinical routine testing. Blood (1 mL) was sampled by radial artery puncture and collected in heparinized syringes. Blood gas analyses were performed at the central biochemistry laboratory using the Omni-S COBAS B221 system (RocheDiagnostics, France). Normal ranges were as follow: pH = 7.35-7.45; [mathematical expression not reproducible] = 35-45 mm Hg; [mathematical expression not reproducible] = 78-98 mm Hg; HC[O.sub.3] = 22-26 mmol/L; base excess = -2 to +2 mmol/L. Hypercapnia was defined as [mathematical expression not reproducible]> 45 mm Hg. Acidosis was defined as pH [less than or equal to] 7.34.

Clinical parameters including breathing frequency, signs of increased WOB, and vital signs were assessed serially by the treating emergency physician. Breathing frequency was measured over 1 min. Signs of increased WOB were evaluated based on the use of accessory respiratory muscles (intercostal and subcostal muscles) and paradoxical abdominal breathing. Each of the 3 signs was graded from 1 (absent) to 5 (very high). Scores were subsequently added on a 15-point scale assessing the overall severity of signs of increased WOB.

We also collected chest radiographs and laboratory data including NT-proBNP, hs-cTNT, C-reactive protein, and bloodcell counts according to our standard of care to adjudicate discharge diagnosis. Discharge diagnosis was adjudicated retrospectively upon review of subject medical records, secondary to all additional examinations, including hospitalization data, by 2 independent emergency physicians. Diagnosis of acute CPE was established according to the ESC Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure. (8)

Statistical Analysis

Datawere collected prospectively by the attending emergency physicians or research assistants using a standardized form. Data were recorded and stored in an Excel database before transfer to SPSS 23.0 software (IBM, Armonk, New York) for analysis.

Quantitative data were analyzed as median (interquartile range [IQR]) and were compared at baseline between groups using a Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative data were analyzed as numbers and proportion and were compared between groups using a chi-square test or a Fisher exact test. The primary outcome was reported as the median of differences (IQR) in [mathematical expression not reproducible] between baseline values and values after 1 h of treatment. Changes in secondary outcomes between baseline values and values after 1 h of treatment were reported as median of differences (IQR). Before- and after- treatment comparisons were tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Between-group differences for frequency data were reported as odds ratios and 95% CIs; CIs were calculated using the modified Wald method. Results were considered statistically significantly different if P [less than or equal to] .05 or if the 95% CI did not include 1 for the odds ratio.

Results

We enrolled a total of 45 subjects who presented with hypercapnic respiratory failure suspected to be due to acute CPE over the study period (Fig. 1). We excluded 5 patients who presented with prespecified exclusion criteria, including underlying exacerbation of COPD or sepsis.

We secondarily excluded 8 subjects with a final diagnosis other than CPE at emergency department or hospital discharge, leaving 27 subjects in the study analysis. Subjects were elderly with a median age of 87 y (IQR 78-93). They presented with severe acute respiratory failure, as shown by a breathing frequency of 32 breaths/min (IQR 26-39) and indirectsigns of increased WOB recorded in 22 (81%) subjects, and moderate respiratory acidosis (Table 1). Main precipitating factors for CPE were atrial fibrillation (15%), hypertensive crisis (26%), and respiratory tract infection (22%). Fifteen (56%) subjects received NIV, and 12 (44%) received HFNC as ventilatory support. Baseline characteristics were similar in both treatment groups (Table 1).

HFNC was administered for a median duration of 67 (IQR 60-90) min, with a median flow range of 50 (IQR 40-60) L/min and a median [mathematical expression not reproducible] of 0.50 (IQR 0.40-0.57). NIV was administered for a median duration of 70 (IQR 60-90) min. NIV was provided in the pressure controlled continuous spontaneous ventilation mode, with median [mathematical expression not reproducible] of 0.60 (IQR 0.34-0.62). HFNC was not terminated prematurely before the end of the 1-h ventilatory session in any subject, whether because of worsening of respiratory failureor failure to tolerate the treatment. Two (7%) subjects were transferred to ICU after emergency department management; both had been treated with NIV. No subjects required escalation to invasive ventilation, whether in the emergency department or the ICU.

Compared to baseline, [mathematical expression not reproducible] significantly improved 1 h after initiation of treatment in both treatment groups (Table 2, Fig. 2). The median change in [mathematical expression not reproducible] (mm Hg) between baseline and after 1 h of treatment was 7 (IQR 4-11, P = .002) for HFNC and 3 (IQR 1-8, P = .02) for NIV.

pH improved 1 h after initiation of treatment in both treatment groups (Table 2, Fig. 3). The median change in pH was 0.08 (IQR 0.04-0.24, P = .005) for HFNC and 0.04(IQR 0.01-0.12, P = .005) for NIV. Breathing frequency and signs of increased WOB also significantly improved 1 h after initiation of treatment in both treatment groups (Table 2, Fig. 3).

HFNC improved breathing frequency with a median change of 5 breaths/min (IQR 2-12, P = .028). HFNC also reduced the severity of increased WOB with a median change of 3 (IQR 1-6, P = .005) on the 15-point scale, and the number of subjects with signs of increased WOB by 73% (P = .008).

NIV improved breathing frequency with a median change of 8 breaths/min (IQR 2-12, P = .036), and signs of increased WOB with a median change of 2 (IQR 0-4, P = .005) on the 15-point scale. The number of subjects with signs of increased WOB was reduced by 54% (P = .031).

There was no between-group difference in changes in [mathematical expression not reproducible] at 1 h after initiation of treatment (Table 2). There was nobetween-group difference in percent of subjects with normalized [mathematical expression not reproducible] or in other blood gas or clinical parameters recorded at 1 h, except for breathing frequency(P = .02).

Discussion

Toour knowledge, this is the first prospective study specifically designed to assess the efficacy of HFNC treatment in the early management of patients with respiratory failure due to hypercapnic acute CPE. This study also compares HFNCto NIV in the treatment of hypercapnia in a population of subjects presenting with acute respiratory failure of homogenous etiology in the setting of early emergency department management. There are limited data to date comparing the efficacy of HFNC to that of NIV in hypercapnic respiratory failure. Our results indicate that 1 h of HFNC treatment effectively improves [mathematical expression not reproducible] and pH, as well as respiratory parameters such as breathing frequency and signs of increased WOB in this specific patient population. Furthermore, our results suggest that HFNC may be as effective as NIV in improving [mathematical expression not reproducible] after a 1-h ventilatory session in this specific patient population.

Besides studies exploring the use of HFNC to treat COPD exacerbation, data in the literature regarding acute hypercapnic respiratory failure are from subjects with unselected respiratory failure. Our results confirm the effect of HFNC on hypercapnia reported previously in a subset of emergency department subjects with hypercapnic respiratory failure of all causes in 2 retrospective studies. (32,33) Our results are also in line with the decrease in [mathematical expression not reproducible] reported by Doshi et al (29) in a randomized controlled trial of subjects in the emergency department with unselected acute respiratory failure. Doshi et al (29) reported a reduction in [mathematical expression not reproducible] of > 5 mm Hg at 1 h after both HFNC and NIV, and a further decrease at 4 h in their subgroup analysis of 121 hypercapnic subjects. (30)

Hypercapnia is a common complication in patients with . The causes are multiple and still poorly understood. An undocumented underlying chronic lung disease that increases dead space could favor hypercapnia. (3,4) In addition, rib cage stiffness and respiratory muscle fatigue caused by increased airway pressure and obstruction due to edema may lead to alveolar hypoventilation and hypercapnia. In our study population, which excluded chronic lung diseases and sepsis, age, and high body mass index may be associated factors.

The ability of HFNC to reduce [mathematical expression not reproducible] in hypercapnic CPE may be mediated by complex mechanisms. Two main mechanisms have been identified in experimental and pilot studies. First, HFNC is able to provide continuous wash out of dead space in the upper airways, preventing the rebreathing of C[O.sub.2]. (15,16) HFNC thereby enables a functional reduction in dead space and reduces minute ventilation by slowing down the breathing frequency and reducing WOB, as shown in subjects with COPD. (34) HFNC also provides a slight level of PEEP (ie, 2-5 cm [H.sub.2]O), which improves alveolar recruitment and tidal volume, contributing to alveoli clearance and to [mathematical expression not reproducible] reduction. The PEEP-like effect is dependent on air flow, as well as on a closed mouth. (35) It may be reduced to 0-2cm [H.sub.2]O in open-mouth patients, as observed in subjects after cardiac surgery. (18,20) The PEEP-like effect may be lowered in patients with acute hypercapnic CPE, who are often unable to maintain a closed mouth during HFNC treatment due to severe respiratory failure. However, a flow-mediated effect that optimizes alveolar ventilation and gas exchange could also play a role in the rapid decrease in [mathematical expression not reproducible] observed in our study, where a high flow was administered to subjects (ie, 50 L/min).

In addition to the improvement in [mathematical expression not reproducible] and pH, our results suggest that HFNC may be effective in decreasing the breathing frequency and signs of increased WOB. The improved breathing frequency and reduced signs of increased WOB obtained after 1 h of treatment in our study probably result from all of these mechanisms combined. HFNC has been shown to confer effects similar to those of NIV on diaphragmatic WOB as estimated with diaphragm ultrasound. Additional benefits of HFNC over NIV have been reported in adult subjects with cystic fibrosis who had been stabilized after over median 3 days under NIV. Both breathing frequency and minute ventilation were reduced. (36) No effects were observed on transcutaneous C[O.sub.2] in this physiologic study, which included 15 subjects ventilated with HFNC and NIV for 30 min in a cross-over random order, which was probably due to the short duration of HFNC treatment. (37) NIV seemed to have a greater effect on breathing frequency than HFNC in our subjects. We assumed that NIV combined the effect of pressure support and high PEEP to improve breathing frequency more quickly than HFNC, for which PEEP is limited, especially when suboptimal nasal flow was administered (ie, < 60 L/min) or when the mouth of the patient was open. (17-18)

Several limitations have to be acknowledged. The main limitationis the small sample recruited from a single emergency department. The lack of a randomized study design and of blinding are 2 other major limitations. The choice of ventilatory support was based on the presence of an attending emergency physician trained in the use HFNC. We cannot exclude the possibility that emergency department physicians' expertise may have biased our results. We cannot exclude selection bias, with NIV administered to more severe patients. Indeed, there seems to be a trend toward a higher baseline [mathematical expression not reproducible] level in the NIV group. The study sample and resulting power (68%) were lower than planned. However, the effects of HFNC on [mathematical expression not reproducible] were higher than expected a priori, resulting in a significant difference in the primary outcome. This study was intended as pilot study. Preliminary data were used to design a well-powered, randomized controlled noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy of HFNC and NIV in subjects with hypercapnic respiratory failure due to CPE treated in the emergency department (OPTICAP). Although a drop of 5-10 mm Hg in [mathematical expression not reproducible] following 1 h of HFNC treatment may not be relevant clinically, especially in patients with severe hypercapnia, it should be regarded as a sign of early response to HFNC. Absence of improvement in [mathematical expression not reproducible], with no associated improvement in pH or signs of WOB, at1 h should prompt the emergency physician to reconsider thetreatment pathway or to consider escalating treatment to NIV or invasive mechanical

ventilation.

Conclusions

Our results, although preliminary, support the use of HFNC as alternative support for the early emergency department management of hypercapnia in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure related to acute CPE. HFNC could be considered as an alternative to NIV in patients in the emergency department who are intolerant to NIV or for whom NIV is contraindicated. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to explore the efficacy of HFNC compared to that of NIV in terms of longer duration and subject-centered outcomes in acute hypercapnic CPE.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Jeffrey Arsham for reviewing and editing our original English-language manuscript. We thank Denis Frasca and Nicolas Molinari for their help with statistical analyses. We thank the emergency department staff, including physicians, residents, and nurses, for their contribution to patient screening, enrollment, and management throughout the study.

REFERENCES

(1.) Laribi S, Keijzers G, van Meer O, Klim S, Motiejunaite J, Kuan WS, et al. Epidemiology of patients presenting with dyspnea to emergency departments in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Eur J Emerg Med 2019;26(5):345-349.

(2.) Aberman A, Fulop M. The metabolic and respiratory acidosis of acute pulmonary edema. Ann Intern Med 1972; 76(2):173-184.

(3.) Contou D, Fragnoli C, Cordoba-Izquierdo A, Boissier F, Brun-Buisson C, Thille AW. Severe but not mild hypercapnia affects the outcome in patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema treated by non-invasive ventilation. Ann Intensive Care 2015;5(1):55.

(4.) Konishi M, Akiyama E, Suzuki H, Iwahashi N, Maejima N, Tsukahara K, et al. Hypercapnia in patients with acute heart failure. ESC Heart Fail 2015;2(1):12-19.

(5.) Contou D, Fragnoli C, Cordoba-Izquierdo A, Boissier F, Brun-Buisson C, Thille AW. Noninvasive ventilation for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: intubation rate in an experienced unit. Respir Care 2013;58(12):2045-2052.

(6.) Masip J, Peacock WF, Price S, Cullen L, Martin-Sanchez FJ, Seferovic P, et al. Indications and practical approach to non- invasive ventilation in acute heart failure. Eur Heart J 2018;39(1):17-25.

(7.) Masip J, Roque M, Sanchez B, Fernandez R, Subirana M, Exposito JA. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2005;294(24):3124-3130.

(8.) Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2016;37 (27):2129-2200.

(9.) Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J 2017;50(2):1602426.

(10.) Tallman TA, Peacock WF, Emerman CL, Lopatin M, Blicker JZ, Weber J, et al. Noninvasive ventilation outcomes in 2,430 acute decompensated heart failure patients: an ADHERE Registry Analysis. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15(4):355-362.

(11.) Bersten AD, Holt AW, Vedig AE, Skowronski GA, Baggoley CJ. Treatment of severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by face mask. N Engl J Med 1991;325(26):1825-1830.

(12.) Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby DE, Masson M, Sampson F, Nicholl J, 3CPOTrialists. Noninvasive ventilation in acute

cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med 2008;359(2):142-151.

(13.) Vital FMR, Ladeira MT, Atallah AN. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5:CD005351.

(14.) Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, Girault C, Ragot S, Perbet S, et al. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med 2015;372(23):2185-2196.

(15.) Mooller W, Celik G, Feng S, Bartenstein P, Meyer G, Oliver E, et al. Nasal high flow clears anatomical dead space in upper airway models. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2015;118(12):1525-1532.

(16.) Mooller W, Feng S, Domanski U, Franke KJ, Celik G, Bartenstein P, et al. Nasal high flow reduces dead space. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2017;122(1):191-197.

(17.)Parke R, McGuinness S, Eccleston M. Nasal high-flow therapy delivers low level positive airway pressure. Br J Anaesth 2009;103(6):886-890.

(18.)Parke RL, Eccleston ML, McGuinness SP. The effects of flow on airway pressure during nasal high-flow oxygen therapy. Respir Care 2011;56(8):1151-1155.

(19.) Frat JP, Brugiere B, Ragot S, Chatellier D, Veinstein A, Goudet V, et al. Sequential application of oxygen therapy via high- flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure: an observational pilot study. Respir Care 2015; 60(2):170-178.

(20.) Corley A, Rickard CM, Aitken LM, Johnston A, Barnett A, Fraser JF, et al. High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;5:CD010172.

(21.) Rochwerg B, Granton D, Wang DX, Helviz Y, Einav S, Frat JP, et al. High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45(5):563-572.

(22.) Ni YN, Luo J, Yu H, Liu D, Ni Z, Cheng J, et al. Can high-flow nasal cannula reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation in adult patients with acute respiratory failure compared with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2017;151(4):764-775.

(23.)Beng Leong L, Wei Ming N, Wei Feng L. High flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation in adult acute respiratory failure: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials. Eur J Emerg Med 2019;26(1):9-18.

(24.) Frat JP, Joly F, Thille AW. Noninvasive ventilation versus oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2019;32(2):150-155.

(25.) Lenglet H, Sztrymf B, Leroy C, Brun P, Dreyfuss D, Ricard JD. Humidified high flow nasal oxygen during respiratory failure in the emergency department: feasibility and efficacy. Respir Care 2012;57 (11):1873-1878.

(26.) Mace J, Marjanovic N, Faranpour F, Mimoz O, Frerebeau M, Violeau M, et al. Early high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED: a before-after study. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37(11):2091-2096.

(27.) Rittayamai N, Tscheikuna J, Praphruetkit N, Kijpinyochai S. Use of high-flownasal cannula for acute dyspnea and hypoxemia in the emergency department. Respir Care 2015;60(10):1377-1382.

(28.) Jones PG, Kamona S, Doran O, Sawtell F, Wilsher M. Randomized controlledtrial of humidified high-flow nasal oxygen for acute respiratory distress in the emergency department: the HOT-ER study. Respir Care 2016;61(3):291-299.

(29.) Doshi P, Whittle JS, Bublewicz M, Kearney J, Ashe T, Graham R, et al. High-velocity nasal insufflation in the treatment of respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med 2018;72(1): 73-83.

(30.) Haywood ST, Whittle JS, Volakis LI, Dungan G2nd, Bublewicz M, Kearney J, et al. HVNI vs NIPPV in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: subgroup analysis of a multi-center trial in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37(11):2084-2090.

(31.) Makdee O, Monsomboon A, Surabenjawong U, Praphruetkit N, ChaisirinW, Chakorn T, et al. High-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygentherapy in emergency department patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 2017;70(4):465-472.

(32.) Jeong JH, Kim DH, Kim SC, Kang C, Lee SH, Kang TS, et al. Changes in arterial blood gases after use of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2015;33(10):1344-1349.

(33.) Kim ES, Lee H, Kim SJ, Park J, Lee YJ, Park JS, et al. Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia. J Thorac Dis 2018;10(2):882-888.

(34.) Braunlich J, Kohler M, Wirtz H. Nasal high flow improves ventilation in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2016; 11:1077-1085.

(35.)Parke RL, McGuinness SP. Pressures delivered by nasal high flow oxygen during all phases of the respiratory cycle. Respir Care 2013;58 (10):1621-1624.

(36.) Thille AW, Joly F, Marjanovic N, Frat JP. High-flow oxygen therapy for the management of patients with acute exacerbation of cystic fibrosis. Ann Transl Med 2018;6:S113.

(37.) Sklar MC, Dres M, Rittayamai N, West B, Grieco DL, Telias I, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation in adult patients with cystic fibrosis: a randomized crossover physiological study. Ann Intensive Care 2018;8(1):85.

Nicolas Marjanovic, Alexandre Flacher, Loic Drouet, Aude Le Gouhinec, Hakim Said, Jean-Francois Vigneau, Barbara Chollet, Sophie Lefebvre, and Mustapha Sebbane

The authors are affiliated with the Department of Emergency Medicine and Prehospital Care, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.

Dr Marjanovic presented a version of this paper at the annual conference of the French Society for Emergency Medicine (Urgences 2019), on June 6, 2019, and Dr Lefebvre presented a version of this paper at the annual conference of the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care on September 19, 2019, in Paris, France.

Fisher and Paykel provided the Optiflow Airvo2 devices. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Correspondence: Mustapha Sebbane MD PhD, Emergency Department, Montpellier University Hospital, Hopital Lapeyronie, 191 avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295 Montpellier, Cedex 5, France. E-mail: [email protected].

QUICK LOOK

Current knowledge

High-flownasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is an alternative strategy for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of heterogeneous etiologies. Recent evidence from retrospective studies and subgroup analysis of patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure of allcauses suggest that HFNC may be effective in treating hypercapnia.

Table 1. Subject Characteristics at Baseline

Overall

Age, y 87 (78-93) Men 10 (37) Women 17 (63) History Chronic lung disease 7 (26) Cardiogenic heart failure 8 (30) Hypertension 15 (56) Diabetes 5 (18) Clinical parameters Temperature, [degrees]C 37.1 (36.5-37.5) f, breaths/min 32 (26-39) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% (*) 95 (91-98) Oxygen flow at baseline, L/min 4 (1-9) Heart rate, beats/min 86 (75-118) SBP, mm Hg 148 (117-177) DBP, mm Hg 72 (62-89) Signs of increased WOB 22 (81) Increased WOB score ([dagger]) 6 (4-10) Biological parameters [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 55 (49-64) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 102 (70-136) pH 7.29 (7.22-7.35 HC[O.sub.3], mEq 27 (25-29) NT-proBNP, ng/L 4,547 (1,821-8,929) hs-cTNT, ng/L 41.6 (25.4-72.5) Creatinine, mmol/L 98 (68-117) White blood cell count, [10.sup.9]/L 9.1 (6.4-14) Other therapeutics Furosemide 27 (100) Nitrate derivative 16 (59) Antibiotics 3 (11) [[beta].sub.2] agonist 6 (22)

HFNC

Age, y 91 (77-94) Men 7 (58) Women 5 (42) History Chronic lung disease 4 (33) Cardiogenic heart failure 3 (25) Hypertension 5 (51) Diabetes 2 (17) Clinical parameters Temperature, [degrees]C 37.5 (36.5-37.7) f, breaths/min 34 (27-41) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% (*) 93 (90-98) Oxygen flow at baseline, L/min 3 (1-8) Heart rate, beats/min 97 (80-128) SBP, mm Hg 156 (124-172) DBP, mm Hg 80 (63-85) Signs of increased WOB 11 (92) Increased WOB score ([dagger]) 7 (4-9)

What this paper contributes to our knowledge

Treatment with HFNC for 1 h improved [mathematical expression not reproducible] and respiratory parameters, including pH, breathing frequency, and signs of increased work of breathing in hypercapnic patients presenting in the emergency department with respiratory failure due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. HFNC might be considered as alternative support for early management of acute hypercapnic cardiogenic pulmonary edema in the emergency department setting.

DOI: 10.4187/respcare.07278

Biological parameters [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 50 (49-61) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 99 (61-155) pH 7.30 (7.20-7.36) HC[O.sub.3], mEq 27 (25-30) NT-proBNP, ng/L 3,520 (1,579-11,585) hs-cTNT, ng/L 38.9 (29.5-74.4) Creatinine, mmol/L 91 (69.8-114.8) White blood cell count, [10.sup.9]/L 9.7 (6.9-13.4) Other therapeutics Furosemide 12 (100) Nitrate derivative 8 (67) Antibiotics 2 (17) [[beta].sub.2] agonist 3 (25)

NIV

Age, y 82 (79-92) Men 3 (20) Women 12 (80) History Chronic lung disease 3 (20) Cardiogenic heart failure 5 (33) Hypertension 10 (67) Diabetes 3 (20) Clinical parameters Temperature, [degrees]C 37.1 (36.4-37.3) f, breaths/min 29 (26-36) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% (*) 96 (94-98) Oxygen flow at baseline, L/min 5 (2-14) Heart rate, beats/min 79 (68-98) SBP, mm Hg 146 (111-184) DBP, mm Hg 71 (61-92) Signs of increased WOB 11 (73) Increased WOB score ([dagger]) 6 (3-11) Biological parameters [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 60 (48-71) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 102 (72-125) pH 7.29 (7.21-7.35) HC[O.sub.3], mEq 27 (24-29) NT-proBNP, ng/L 5,069 (1,970-8,369) hs-cTNT, ng/L 44.9 (17.6-74.9) Creatinine, mmol/L 110 (63-126) White blood cell count, [10.sup.9]/L 8.2 (6-17.9) Other therapeutics Furosemide 15 (100) Nitrate derivative 8 (53) Antibiotics 1 (7) [[beta].sub.2] agonist 3 (20)

P

Age, y .40 Men .057 Women History Chronic lung disease .66 Cardiogenic heart failure .17 Hypertension .26 Diabetes >.99 Clinical parameters Temperature, [degrees]C .23 f, breaths/min .28 [mathematical expression not reproducible],% (*) .31 Oxygen flow at baseline, L/min .21 Heart rate, beats/min .058 SBP, mm Hg >.99 DBP, mm Hg .94 Signs of increased WOB .22

Increased WOB score ([dagger]) .72 Biological parameters [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .45 [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .88 pH .98 HC[O.sub.3], mEq .49 NT-proBNP, ng/L .76 hs-cTNT, ng/L .67 Creatinine, mmol/L .58 White blood cell count, [10.sup.9]/L .46 Other therapeutics Furosemide >.99 Nitrate derivative >.99 Antibiotics >.99 [[beta].sub.2] agonist >.99

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or n (%). P values refer to comparison between groups. Overall: n = 27 subjects; HFNC: n = 12 subjects; NIV: n = 15 subjects. (*) [mathematical expression not reproducible] could be recorded with or without standard oxygen therapy. ([dagger]) Work of breathing is scored on a 15-point scale. HFNC = high-flow nasal cannula NIV = noninvasive ventilation f = breathing frequency SBP = systolic blood pressure DBP = diastolic blood pressure WOB = work of breathing NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide hs-cTNT = hypersensitive cardiac troponin-T

Table 2. Changes in Blood Gas Analysis and Other Parameters After Treatment

Baseline

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 50 (49-61) D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg NA [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization NA pH 7.30 (7.20-7.36) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 99 (61-155) Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min 34 (27-41) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% 93 (90-98) Increased WOB 11 (92) WOB score ([dagger]) 7 (4-9) Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min 97 (80-128) SBP, mm Hg 156 (124-172) DBP, mm Hg 80 (63-85)

HFNC After 1 h HFNC

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 45 (42-49) D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 7 (4-11) [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization 7 (8) pH 7.38 (7.36-7.42) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 89 (75-99) Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min 26 (25-29) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% 95 (94-98) Increased WOB 3 (25)

WOB score ([dagger]) 3 (3-4) Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min 81 (73-128) SBP, mm Hg 143 (117-162) DBP, mm Hg 70 (57-80)

P

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .002 D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg NA [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization NA pH .005

[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .42 Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min .03 [mathematical expression not reproducible],% .44 Increased WOB .008 WOB score ([dagger]) .005 Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min .24 SBP, mm Hg .07 DBP, mm Hg .31

Baseline

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 60 (48-71) D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg NA [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization NA pH 7.29 (7.21-7.35) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 102 (72-125) Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min 29 (26-36) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% 96 (94-98) Increased WOB 11 (73) WOB score ([dagger]) 6 (3-11) Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min 79 (68-98) SBP, mm Hg 146 (111-184) DBP, mm Hg 71 (61-92)

NIV After 1 h NIV

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 52 (44-61) D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 3 (1-8) [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization 6 (5) pH 7.34 (7.30-7.40) [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg 83 (72-126) Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min 21 (18-26) [mathematical expression not reproducible],% 96 (95-97) Increased WOB 5 (33) WOB score ([dagger]) 3 (3-4) Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min 76 (63-93) SBP, mm Hg 128 (109-142) DBP, mm Hg 66 (58-71)

P

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .02 D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg NA [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization NA pH .005

[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .86 Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min .036 [mathematical expression not reproducible],% .16 Increased WOB .031 WOB score ([dagger]) .005 Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min .036 SBP, mm Hg .02 DBP, mm Hg .13

P (*)

Blood gas analysis [mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .08 D[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .09 [mathematical expression not reproducible] normalization .43 pH .11

[mathematical expression not reproducible], mm Hg .7 Respiratory parameters f, breaths/min .03 [mathematical expression not reproducible],% .56 Increased WOB .69 WOB score ([dagger]) .65 Vital signs Heart rate, beats/min .14 SBP, mm Hg .11 DBP, mm Hg .42

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or n (%). Changes in [mathematical expression not reproducible] are reported as median of differences (interquartile range). P values refer to comparison between groups. (*) P values refer to comparisons between HFNC and NIV at 1 h. P [less than or equal to] .05 is considered statistically significant. ([dagger]) Work of breathing is scored on a 15-point scale. HFNC = high-flow nasal cannula NIV = noninvasive ventilation NA = not applicable f = breathing frequency WOB = work of breathing SBP = systolic blood pressure DBP = diastolic blood pressure

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2020 Daedalus Enterprises, Inc. http://www.rcjournal.com/

Source Citation Marjanovic, Nicolas, et al. "High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Early Emergency Department Management of Acute Hypercapnic

Respiratory Failure Due to Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema." Respiratory Care, vol. 65, no. 9, Sept. 2020, p. 1241+. Gale OneFile: Nursing and Allied Health, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A635192464/PPNU?u=canyonuniv&sid=PPNU&xid=94da256e. Accessed 10 Mar. 2021.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A635192464