高强度与低强度无创正压通气对慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重患者气管插管需求的影响:HAPPEN 随机临床试验》。

IF 63.1 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Zujin Luo, Yichong Li, Wenjun Li, Ying Li, Qingrong Nie, Yu Shi, Juan Wang, Qiuling Ji, Xuefeng Han, Sijie Liu, Dongmei Li, ShaSha Wang, Zhijun Li, Dong Jia, Huiqing Ge, Peifeng Xu, Zhijun Feng, Fengjie Li, Fucheng An, Na Tai, Lili Yue, Hongwei Xie, Xiuhong Jin, Hongru Liu, Qiang Dang, Yongxiang Zhang, Li Sun, Jinxiang Wang, He Huang, Liang Chen, Yingmin Ma, Zhixin Cao, Chen Wang
{"title":"高强度与低强度无创正压通气对慢性阻塞性肺病急性加重患者气管插管需求的影响:HAPPEN 随机临床试验》。","authors":"Zujin Luo, Yichong Li, Wenjun Li, Ying Li, Qingrong Nie, Yu Shi, Juan Wang, Qiuling Ji, Xuefeng Han, Sijie Liu, Dongmei Li, ShaSha Wang, Zhijun Li, Dong Jia, Huiqing Ge, Peifeng Xu, Zhijun Feng, Fengjie Li, Fucheng An, Na Tai, Lili Yue, Hongwei Xie, Xiuhong Jin, Hongru Liu, Qiang Dang, Yongxiang Zhang, Li Sun, Jinxiang Wang, He Huang, Liang Chen, Yingmin Ma, Zhixin Cao, Chen Wang","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.15815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The effect of high-intensity noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) on the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether the use of high-intensity NPPV vs low-intensity NPPV reduces the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD and hypercapnia.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Randomized clinical trial conducted at 30 general respiratory non-intensive care unit wards of Chinese hospitals from January 3, 2019, to January 31, 2022; the last 90-day follow-up was on April 22, 2022. The included patients had an acute exacerbation of COPD and a Paco2 level greater than 45 mm Hg after receiving 6 hours of low-intensity NPPV.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive high-intensity NPPV with inspiratory positive airway pressure that was adjusted to obtain a tidal volume 10 mL/kg to 15 mL/kg of predicted body weight (n = 147) or to continue receiving low-intensity NPPV with inspiratory positive airway pressure that was adjusted to obtain a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg to 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight (n = 153). Patients in the low-intensity NPPV group who met the prespecified criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation during hospitalization, which was defined by prespecified criteria. There were 15 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board and the trial steering committee after an interim analysis of the first 300 patients. Among the 300 patients who completed the trial (mean age, 73 years [SD, 10 years]; 68% were men), all were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of meeting prespecified criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation occurred in 7 of 147 patients (4.8%) in the high-intensity NPPV group vs 21 of 153 (13.7%) in the low-intensity NPPV group (absolute difference, -9.0% [95% CI, -15.4% to -2.5%], 1-sided P = .004). However, rates of endotracheal intubation did not significantly differ between groups (3.4% [5/147] in the high-intensity NPPV group vs 3.9% [6/153] in the low-intensity NPPV group; absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -4.8% to 3.7%], P = .81). Abdominal distension occurred more frequently in the high-intensity NPPV group (37.4% [55/147]) compared with the low-intensity NPPV group (25.5% [39/153]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Patients with COPD and persistent hypercapnia in the high-intensity NPPV group (vs patients in the low-intensity NPPV group) were significantly less likely to meet criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation; however, patients in the low-intensity NPPV group were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV, and the between-group rate of endotracheal intubation was not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02985918.</p>","PeriodicalId":54909,"journal":{"name":"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association","volume":" ","pages":"1709-1722"},"PeriodicalIF":63.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11406453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of High-Intensity vs Low-Intensity Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation on the Need for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With an Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The HAPPEN Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Zujin Luo, Yichong Li, Wenjun Li, Ying Li, Qingrong Nie, Yu Shi, Juan Wang, Qiuling Ji, Xuefeng Han, Sijie Liu, Dongmei Li, ShaSha Wang, Zhijun Li, Dong Jia, Huiqing Ge, Peifeng Xu, Zhijun Feng, Fengjie Li, Fucheng An, Na Tai, Lili Yue, Hongwei Xie, Xiuhong Jin, Hongru Liu, Qiang Dang, Yongxiang Zhang, Li Sun, Jinxiang Wang, He Huang, Liang Chen, Yingmin Ma, Zhixin Cao, Chen Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jama.2024.15815\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The effect of high-intensity noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) on the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether the use of high-intensity NPPV vs low-intensity NPPV reduces the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD and hypercapnia.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>Randomized clinical trial conducted at 30 general respiratory non-intensive care unit wards of Chinese hospitals from January 3, 2019, to January 31, 2022; the last 90-day follow-up was on April 22, 2022. The included patients had an acute exacerbation of COPD and a Paco2 level greater than 45 mm Hg after receiving 6 hours of low-intensity NPPV.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive high-intensity NPPV with inspiratory positive airway pressure that was adjusted to obtain a tidal volume 10 mL/kg to 15 mL/kg of predicted body weight (n = 147) or to continue receiving low-intensity NPPV with inspiratory positive airway pressure that was adjusted to obtain a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg to 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight (n = 153). Patients in the low-intensity NPPV group who met the prespecified criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation during hospitalization, which was defined by prespecified criteria. There were 15 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board and the trial steering committee after an interim analysis of the first 300 patients. Among the 300 patients who completed the trial (mean age, 73 years [SD, 10 years]; 68% were men), all were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of meeting prespecified criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation occurred in 7 of 147 patients (4.8%) in the high-intensity NPPV group vs 21 of 153 (13.7%) in the low-intensity NPPV group (absolute difference, -9.0% [95% CI, -15.4% to -2.5%], 1-sided P = .004). However, rates of endotracheal intubation did not significantly differ between groups (3.4% [5/147] in the high-intensity NPPV group vs 3.9% [6/153] in the low-intensity NPPV group; absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -4.8% to 3.7%], P = .81). Abdominal distension occurred more frequently in the high-intensity NPPV group (37.4% [55/147]) compared with the low-intensity NPPV group (25.5% [39/153]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Patients with COPD and persistent hypercapnia in the high-intensity NPPV group (vs patients in the low-intensity NPPV group) were significantly less likely to meet criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation; however, patients in the low-intensity NPPV group were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV, and the between-group rate of endotracheal intubation was not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02985918.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1709-1722\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":63.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11406453/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.15815\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.15815","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:高强度无创正压通气(NPPV)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重患者气管插管需求的影响尚不清楚:目的:确定使用高强度 NPPV 与低强度 NPPV 是否能减少慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重和高碳酸血症患者的气管插管需求:随机临床试验于2019年1月3日至2022年1月31日在中国医院的30个普通呼吸科非重症监护病房进行;最后一次90天随访于2022年4月22日。纳入的患者均为慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重患者,在接受6小时低强度NPPV治疗后,Paco2水平大于45毫米汞柱:患者按 1:1 随机分配接受高强度 NPPV,吸气气道正压调整为潮气量 10 mL/kg 至 15 mL/kg(预测体重)(n = 147),或继续接受低强度 NPPV,吸气气道正压调整为潮气量 6 mL/kg 至 10 mL/kg(预测体重)(n = 153)。低强度 NPPV 组患者如果符合气管插管需求的预设标准,则可交叉使用高强度 NPPV:主要结果是住院期间的气管插管需求,这是由预先指定的标准定义的。共有 15 项预设的次要结果,包括气管插管:在对前 300 名患者进行中期分析后,数据与安全监控委员会和试验指导委员会终止了试验。在完成试验的 300 名患者中(平均年龄 73 岁 [SD, 10 岁];68% 为男性),所有患者都纳入了分析。高强度 NPPV 组 147 例患者中有 7 例(4.8%)需要气管插管,而低强度 NPPV 组 153 例患者中有 21 例(13.7%)需要气管插管(绝对差异为-9.0% [95% CI, -15.4% to -2.5%],单侧 P = .004)。然而,气管插管率在组间并无显著差异(高强度 NPPV 组为 3.4% [5/147] vs 低强度 NPPV 组为 3.9% [6/153];绝对差异为 -0.5% [95% CI, -4.8% to 3.7%],P = .81)。高强度 NPPV 组(37.4% [55/147])与低强度 NPPV 组(25.5% [39/153])相比,腹胀发生率更高:结论和相关性:高强度 NPPV 组 COPD 患者和持续高碳酸血症患者(与低强度 NPPV 组患者相比)达到气管插管标准的几率明显较低;但是,低强度 NPPV 组患者可交叉使用高强度 NPPV,组间气管插管率没有显著差异:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02985918。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of High-Intensity vs Low-Intensity Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation on the Need for Endotracheal Intubation in Patients With an Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The HAPPEN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of high-intensity noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) on the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unknown.

Objective: To determine whether the use of high-intensity NPPV vs low-intensity NPPV reduces the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD and hypercapnia.

Design, setting, and participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 30 general respiratory non-intensive care unit wards of Chinese hospitals from January 3, 2019, to January 31, 2022; the last 90-day follow-up was on April 22, 2022. The included patients had an acute exacerbation of COPD and a Paco2 level greater than 45 mm Hg after receiving 6 hours of low-intensity NPPV.

Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive high-intensity NPPV with inspiratory positive airway pressure that was adjusted to obtain a tidal volume 10 mL/kg to 15 mL/kg of predicted body weight (n = 147) or to continue receiving low-intensity NPPV with inspiratory positive airway pressure that was adjusted to obtain a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg to 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight (n = 153). Patients in the low-intensity NPPV group who met the prespecified criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation during hospitalization, which was defined by prespecified criteria. There were 15 prespecified secondary outcomes, including endotracheal intubation.

Results: The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board and the trial steering committee after an interim analysis of the first 300 patients. Among the 300 patients who completed the trial (mean age, 73 years [SD, 10 years]; 68% were men), all were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of meeting prespecified criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation occurred in 7 of 147 patients (4.8%) in the high-intensity NPPV group vs 21 of 153 (13.7%) in the low-intensity NPPV group (absolute difference, -9.0% [95% CI, -15.4% to -2.5%], 1-sided P = .004). However, rates of endotracheal intubation did not significantly differ between groups (3.4% [5/147] in the high-intensity NPPV group vs 3.9% [6/153] in the low-intensity NPPV group; absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -4.8% to 3.7%], P = .81). Abdominal distension occurred more frequently in the high-intensity NPPV group (37.4% [55/147]) compared with the low-intensity NPPV group (25.5% [39/153]).

Conclusions and relevance: Patients with COPD and persistent hypercapnia in the high-intensity NPPV group (vs patients in the low-intensity NPPV group) were significantly less likely to meet criteria for the need for endotracheal intubation; however, patients in the low-intensity NPPV group were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV, and the between-group rate of endotracheal intubation was not significantly different.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02985918.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
48.20
自引率
0.90%
发文量
1569
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) is an international peer-reviewed general medical journal. It has been published continuously since 1883. JAMA is a member of the JAMA Network, which is a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信