高流量鼻氧疗法对并发急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭的癌症患者的疗效:一项回顾性倾向评分研究。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yun Ge, Bingwei Wang, Jingyuan Liu, Ruoyan Han, Changpeng Liu
{"title":"高流量鼻氧疗法对并发急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭的癌症患者的疗效:一项回顾性倾向评分研究。","authors":"Yun Ge, Bingwei Wang, Jingyuan Liu, Ruoyan Han, Changpeng Liu","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission of cancer patients. Studies of the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy were rarely conducted in cancer populations. We here compared the clinical effects of HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). In this single-center retrospective study, cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxic respiratory failure either received initial oxygen therapy via HFNC (HFNC group, 68 patients) or received initial oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula, simple mask, or mask with reservoir bag (COT group, 133 patients). Groups were propensity score matched. Differences in respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio before and after treatment in the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects model. The 28-day mortality risk was explored using a Cox proportional hazards model. The 24-h and 48-h PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratios were significantly higher in the HFNC than in the COT group (210.5 mmHg vs. 178.5 mmHg; P < 0.01; 217.1 mm Hg vs. 181.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01, respectively). Differences in RR and HR between the groups at each time point were nonsignificant. The 28-day mortality rate was 17.4% vs. 38.1% for the HFNC and COT groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio was significantly higher for COT group (HR 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 5.3). Compared with COT, HFNC use for initial oxygen therapy can improve PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratio and survival rate in cancer patients with AHRF.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective propensity score study.\",\"authors\":\"Yun Ge, Bingwei Wang, Jingyuan Liu, Ruoyan Han, Changpeng Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission of cancer patients. Studies of the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy were rarely conducted in cancer populations. We here compared the clinical effects of HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). In this single-center retrospective study, cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxic respiratory failure either received initial oxygen therapy via HFNC (HFNC group, 68 patients) or received initial oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula, simple mask, or mask with reservoir bag (COT group, 133 patients). Groups were propensity score matched. Differences in respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> ratio before and after treatment in the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects model. The 28-day mortality risk was explored using a Cox proportional hazards model. The 24-h and 48-h PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratios were significantly higher in the HFNC than in the COT group (210.5 mmHg vs. 178.5 mmHg; P < 0.01; 217.1 mm Hg vs. 181.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01, respectively). Differences in RR and HR between the groups at each time point were nonsignificant. The 28-day mortality rate was 17.4% vs. 38.1% for the HFNC and COT groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio was significantly higher for COT group (HR 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 5.3). Compared with COT, HFNC use for initial oxygen therapy can improve PaO<sub>2</sub>/FIO<sub>2</sub> ratio and survival rate in cancer patients with AHRF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03777-3","RegionNum":3,"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

急性呼吸衰竭是癌症患者入住重症监护室(ICU)的主要原因。有关高流量鼻插管(HFNC)疗法疗效的研究很少在癌症患者中开展。我们在此比较了高流量鼻插管疗法和传统氧疗(COT)对并发急性低氧血症呼吸衰竭(AHRF)的癌症患者的临床效果。在这项单中心回顾性研究中,并发急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭的癌症患者要么通过 HFNC 接受初始氧疗(HFNC 组,68 名患者),要么通过鼻插管、简单面罩或带储气袋的面罩接受初始氧疗(COT 组,133 名患者)。各组均进行了倾向评分匹配。采用混合效应模型比较了两组患者治疗前后呼吸频率(RR)、心率(HR)和 PaO2/FiO2 比率的差异。使用 Cox 比例危险模型探讨了 28 天的死亡风险。HFNC 组的 24 小时和 48 小时 PaO2/FIO2 比率明显高于 COT 组(210.5 mmHg 对 178.5 mmHg;P 2/FIO2比率和 AHRF 癌症患者的生存率)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective propensity score study.

Acute respiratory failure is the leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission of cancer patients. Studies of the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy were rarely conducted in cancer populations. We here compared the clinical effects of HFNC therapy and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). In this single-center retrospective study, cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxic respiratory failure either received initial oxygen therapy via HFNC (HFNC group, 68 patients) or received initial oxygen therapy via a nasal cannula, simple mask, or mask with reservoir bag (COT group, 133 patients). Groups were propensity score matched. Differences in respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and PaO2/FiO2 ratio before and after treatment in the two groups were compared using a mixed-effects model. The 28-day mortality risk was explored using a Cox proportional hazards model. The 24-h and 48-h PaO2/FIO2 ratios were significantly higher in the HFNC than in the COT group (210.5 mmHg vs. 178.5 mmHg; P < 0.01; 217.1 mm Hg vs. 181.6 mm Hg; P < 0.01, respectively). Differences in RR and HR between the groups at each time point were nonsignificant. The 28-day mortality rate was 17.4% vs. 38.1% for the HFNC and COT groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Hazard ratio was significantly higher for COT group (HR 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.3, 5.3). Compared with COT, HFNC use for initial oxygen therapy can improve PaO2/FIO2 ratio and survival rate in cancer patients with AHRF.

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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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