High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus noninvasive ventilation for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled pilot study.

Abstract

Background: Whether high-flow nasal oxygen can improve clinical signs of acute respiratory failure in acute heart failure (AHF) is uncertain.

Objective: To compare the effect of high-flow oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on respiratory rate in patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) for AHF-related acute respiratory failure.

Design, settings and participants: Multicenter, randomized pilot study in three French EDs. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to suspected AHF were included. Key exclusion criteria were urgent need for intubation, Glasgow Coma Scale <13 points or hemodynamic instability.

Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (minimum 50 l/min) or noninvasive bilevel positive pressure ventilation.

Outcomes measure: The primary outcome was change in respiratory rate within the first hour of treatment and was analyzed with a linear mixed model. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulse oximetry, heart rate, blood pressure, blood gas samples, comfort, treatment failure and mortality.

Main results: Among the 145 eligible patients in the three participating centers, 60 patients were included in the analysis [median age 86 (interquartile range (IQR), 90; 92) years]. There was a median respiratory rate of 30.5 (IQR, 28; 33) and 29.5 (IQR, 27; 35) breaths/min in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change of -10 (IQR, -12; -8) with high-flow nasal oxygen and -7 (IQR, -11; -5) breaths/min with NIV [estimated difference -2.6 breaths/min (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.5-5.7), P  = 0.052] at 60 min. There was a median SpO 2 of 95 (IQR, 92; 97) and 96 (IQR, 93; 97) in the high-flow oxygen and NIV groups respectively, with a median change at 60 min of 2 (IQR, 0; 5) with high-flow nasal oxygen and 2 (IQR, -1; 5) % with NIV [estimated difference 0.8% (95% CI, -1.1-2.8), P  = 0.60]. PaO 2 , PaCO 2 and pH did not differ at 1 h between groups, nor did treatment failure, intubation and mortality rates.

Conclusion: In this pilot study, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in changes in respiratory rate among patients with acute respiratory failure due to AHF and managed with high-flow oxygen or NIV. However, the point estimate and its large confidence interval may suggest a benefit of high-flow oxygen.

Trial registration: NCT04971213 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ).