{"title":"高流量鼻插管流量对拔管结果的影响:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Sheng-Yuan Ruan, Yao-Wen Kuo, Chun-Ta Huang, Ying-Chun Chien, Chun-Kai Huang, Lu-Cheng Kuo, Jerry Shu-Hung Kuo, Kuei-Pin Chung, Shih-Chi Ku, Jung-Yien Chien","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.12.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has emerged as a promising intervention for post-extubation oxygen therapy, with the potential to reduce the need for reintubation. However, it remains unclear whether using a higher flow setting provides better outcomes than the commonly used flow rate of 30-50 L/min.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Does setting the flow rate of HFNC at 60 L/min versus 40 L/min for post-extubation care result in different extubation outcomes?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This randomized controlled trial assigned intubated patients to receive HFNC at either a 60 L/min or 40 L/min flow rate following extubation. The assigned flow rate was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of reintubation or the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) within 48 hours post-extubation. Key secondary outcomes included ahead-of-schedule changes in HFNC settings and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>180 patients were randomized, with 169 (86 in the 40 L/min group and 83 in the 60 L/min group) included in the analysis. The primary outcome events occurred in 19 patients (22.1%) in the 40 L/min group and in 14 patients (16.9%) in the 60 L/min group (risk difference 5.2% [95% CI, -6.7% to 17.1%], P = 0.39). For secondary outcomes, the 40 L/min group was associated with a higher risk of escalation in respiratory support, defined as using NIV or up-titration of HFNC settings (24 [27.9%] vs 8 [9.6%], P = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In unselected extubated patients, setting the HFNC flow rate at 60 L/min did not reduce the risk of reintubation or NIV use compared to a flow rate of 40 L/min. Using a flow rate of 40 L/min with as-needed up-titration may be a reasonable alternative to setting the flow at 60 L/min for post-extubation care. However, this trial may not have been sufficiently powered to exclude a small between-group difference.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04934163.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Flow Rates of High-flow Nasal Cannula on Extubation Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sheng-Yuan Ruan, Yao-Wen Kuo, Chun-Ta Huang, Ying-Chun Chien, Chun-Kai Huang, Lu-Cheng Kuo, Jerry Shu-Hung Kuo, Kuei-Pin Chung, Shih-Chi Ku, Jung-Yien Chien\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.12.021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has emerged as a promising intervention for post-extubation oxygen therapy, with the potential to reduce the need for reintubation. However, it remains unclear whether using a higher flow setting provides better outcomes than the commonly used flow rate of 30-50 L/min.</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>Does setting the flow rate of HFNC at 60 L/min versus 40 L/min for post-extubation care result in different extubation outcomes?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This randomized controlled trial assigned intubated patients to receive HFNC at either a 60 L/min or 40 L/min flow rate following extubation. The assigned flow rate was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of reintubation or the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) within 48 hours post-extubation. Key secondary outcomes included ahead-of-schedule changes in HFNC settings and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>180 patients were randomized, with 169 (86 in the 40 L/min group and 83 in the 60 L/min group) included in the analysis. The primary outcome events occurred in 19 patients (22.1%) in the 40 L/min group and in 14 patients (16.9%) in the 60 L/min group (risk difference 5.2% [95% CI, -6.7% to 17.1%], P = 0.39). For secondary outcomes, the 40 L/min group was associated with a higher risk of escalation in respiratory support, defined as using NIV or up-titration of HFNC settings (24 [27.9%] vs 8 [9.6%], P = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In unselected extubated patients, setting the HFNC flow rate at 60 L/min did not reduce the risk of reintubation or NIV use compared to a flow rate of 40 L/min. Using a flow rate of 40 L/min with as-needed up-titration may be a reasonable alternative to setting the flow at 60 L/min for post-extubation care. However, this trial may not have been sufficiently powered to exclude a small between-group difference.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04934163.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.12.021\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.12.021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of Flow Rates of High-flow Nasal Cannula on Extubation Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has emerged as a promising intervention for post-extubation oxygen therapy, with the potential to reduce the need for reintubation. However, it remains unclear whether using a higher flow setting provides better outcomes than the commonly used flow rate of 30-50 L/min.
Research question: Does setting the flow rate of HFNC at 60 L/min versus 40 L/min for post-extubation care result in different extubation outcomes?
Study design and methods: This randomized controlled trial assigned intubated patients to receive HFNC at either a 60 L/min or 40 L/min flow rate following extubation. The assigned flow rate was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of reintubation or the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) within 48 hours post-extubation. Key secondary outcomes included ahead-of-schedule changes in HFNC settings and mortality.
Results: 180 patients were randomized, with 169 (86 in the 40 L/min group and 83 in the 60 L/min group) included in the analysis. The primary outcome events occurred in 19 patients (22.1%) in the 40 L/min group and in 14 patients (16.9%) in the 60 L/min group (risk difference 5.2% [95% CI, -6.7% to 17.1%], P = 0.39). For secondary outcomes, the 40 L/min group was associated with a higher risk of escalation in respiratory support, defined as using NIV or up-titration of HFNC settings (24 [27.9%] vs 8 [9.6%], P = 0.002).
Interpretation: In unselected extubated patients, setting the HFNC flow rate at 60 L/min did not reduce the risk of reintubation or NIV use compared to a flow rate of 40 L/min. Using a flow rate of 40 L/min with as-needed up-titration may be a reasonable alternative to setting the flow at 60 L/min for post-extubation care. However, this trial may not have been sufficiently powered to exclude a small between-group difference.
期刊介绍:
At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.