Comparison of hypoxemia, intubation procedure, and complications for non-invasive ventilation against high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a non-randomized retrospective analysis for effectiveness and safety (NIVaHIC-aHRF)

Abstract

Background Optimization of preoxygenation procedure can help to secure the method of intubation by reducing the risks of severe hypoxemia and other problems. There is confusion for efficacy of non-invasive ventilation compared to high-flow oxygen therapy regarding occurrence of severe hypoxemia during the intubation procedure. The purpose of the study was to compare the difference between noninvasive ventilation and high flow oxygen therapy to prevent desaturation during laryngoscopy. Methods Patients underwent high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HCO cohort, n = 161) or non-invasive ventilation procedure (NIV cohort, n = 154) for oxygenation and ventilation due to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit. Data before preoxygenation, preoxygenation, intubation, laryngoscopy, and complications of patients due to tracheal intubation were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Results There was no difference between both cohorts for the demographical and clinical conditions of the patients before preoxygenation (p > 0.05 for all parameters), numbers of patients with severe hypoxia during the intubation procedure (35 vs. 45, p = 0.303), the time duration of laryngoscopy (p = 0.847), number of laryngoscopies attempts (p = 0.804), and immediate and late complications during the intubation procedure. The values of pulse oximetry were reported higher for patients of NIV cohort than those of HCO cohort during preoxygenation. Fewer numbers of patients were reported with severe hypoxia among patients of the NIV cohort than those of the HCO cohort (24 vs., 40, p = 0.042) who have moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio ≤ 200 mmHg) before preoxygenation. The most common complications were hypertension, pulmonary aspiration, and increased 30-day mortality. Conclusions When compared, there was no difference between non-invasive ventilation technique and high-flow oxygen therapy to minimize severe hypoxia prior to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure.

Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy on clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19: A systematic review

“…It also suggests that, when compared to other forms of oxygen therapy (ie, particularly conventional oxygen therapy), HFNC may be more effective in reducing oral intubation rates [ 70 , 71 ]. However, compared with NIV, no differences in intubation rates were found [ 74 , 75 ].…”

Comparison of the effect of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) on hemodynamic parameters in Covid-19 patients: A clinical trial

“…[ 7 ] Since the body does not acquire sufficient oxygen as a result of shortness of breath, it may develop harmful disorders such as hypoxia. [ 8 9 ] The supply of oxygen to the body,[ 10 ] which is commonly performed in a variety of methods, is a crucial concern in the treatment of hypoxia. Nasal cannulas, simple facemasks, venturi masks, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) are all non-invasive approaches.…”