Department of Internal Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Department of Internal Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, No.169 East Lake Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China.
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2021 Jan-Dec;15:17534666211004235. doi: 10.1177/17534666211004235.
The study aimed to compare and analyze the outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the treatment of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) who had extubation after weaning from mechanical ventilation.
A total 120 patients with AHRF were enrolled into this study. These patients underwent tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. They were organized into two groups according to the score of Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II); group A: APACHE II score <12; group B: 12⩽ APACHE II score <24. Group A had 72 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (36 patients in each subgroup). Group B had 48 patients and patients given HFNC were randomly assigned to subgroup I while patients given NPPV were assigned to subgroup II (24 patients in each subgroup). General information, respiratory parameters, endpoint event, and comorbidities of adverse effect were compared and analyzed between the two subgroups.
The incidence of abdominal distension was significantly higher in patients treated with NPPV than in those treated with HFNC in group A (19.44% 0, = 0.005) and group B (25% 0, = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the HFNC- and NPPV-treated patients in blood pH, oxygenation index, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, respiratory rate, and blood lactic acid concentration in either group ( > 0.05). Occurrence rate of re-intubation within 72 h of extubation was slightly, but not significantly, higher in NPPV-treated patients ( > 0.05).
There was no significant difference between HFNC and NPPV in preventing respiratory failure in patients with AHRF with an APACHE II score <24 after extubation. However, HFNC was superior to NPPV with less incidence of abdominal distension.
本研究旨在比较和分析经撤机后行有创-无创序贯机械通气治疗的急性低氧性呼吸衰竭(AHRF)患者中高流量鼻导管(HFNC)与无创正压通气(NPPV)的治疗结局。
共纳入 120 例 AHRF 患者,均经气管插管和机械通气。根据急性生理学与慢性健康状况评分系统Ⅱ(APACHE Ⅱ)评分,将患者分为 2 组;A 组:APACHE Ⅱ评分<12 分;B 组:12≤APACHE Ⅱ评分<24 分。A 组 72 例,HFNC 组患者随机分为亚组Ⅰ,NPPV 组患者分为亚组Ⅱ(每组 36 例);B 组 48 例,HFNC 组患者随机分为亚组Ⅰ,NPPV 组患者分为亚组Ⅱ(每组 24 例)。比较并分析两组患者的一般资料、呼吸参数、终点事件和不良反应的合并症。
A 组和 B 组中,NPPV 组患者的腹胀发生率均明显高于 HFNC 组(19.44%∶0, = 0.005;25%∶0, = 0.009)。A 组和 B 组中,HFNC 组与 NPPV 组患者的血 pH 值、氧合指数、二氧化碳分压、呼吸频率和血乳酸浓度比较,差异均无统计学意义( > 0.05)。A 组和 B 组中,NPPV 组患者的再插管率(72 h 内)虽略有升高,但差异无统计学意义( > 0.05)。
APACHE Ⅱ评分<24 分的撤机后 AHRF 患者中,HFNC 与 NPPV 预防呼吸衰竭的效果相当,但 HFNC 组的腹胀发生率较低。