Nasal high flow or noninvasive ventilation? navigating hypercapnic COPD exacerbation treatment: A randomized noninferiority clinical trial.

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been the cornerstone for managing acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) with hypercapnic respiratory failure. Nasal high flow (NHF) oxygen therapy has emerged as a potential alternative, offering a more tolerable modality with promising outcomes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether NHF respiratory support is noninferior to NIV with respect to treatment failure, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypercapnic AECOPD.

METHODS

In this multi-center, randomized, noninferiority trial, 105 patients with AECOPD and respiratory failure type II were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either NHF therapy or NIV. The primary endpoint was the frequency of treatment failure, defined as the need for intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation or a switch to the alternative treatment group. Secondary endpoints included changes in respiratory parameters, patient comfort indicators, and the occurrence of complications.

RESULTS

The findings revealed no significant difference in the primary outcome between the groups, with a treatment failure rate of 19.6 % (10 out of 51) in the NHF group and 14.8 % (8 out of 54) in the NIV group. Interestingly, NHF users reported significantly lower levels of dyspnea and discomfort at multiple follow-up points. Despite the differences in patient comfort, respiratory parameters such as respiratory rate, arterial blood gases, and use of accessory muscles of respiration showed no significant disparities between the groups throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

NHF therapy was similar to NIV in preventing treatment failure among patients with hypercapnic AECOPD, offering a viable alternative with enhanced comfort.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03466385) on March 15, 2018.