Supplementary appendix

Transcription

1 Supplementary appendix This appendix formed part of the original submission and has been peer reviewed. We post it as supplied by the authors. This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com/respiratory on June 13, Supplement to: Storre JH. Non-invasive oxygenation strategies in hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Lancet Respir Med 2016; published online May org/ /s (16)

2 THELANCETRM-D ONLINE APPENDIX Linked Commentary to THELANCETRM-D R2 Jean-Pierre Frat et al: Impact of non-invasive oxygenation strategies in immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory failure: post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. Short Title: Noninvasive oxygenation strategies in hypoxemic respiratory failure Author: Institutions: Jan H. Storre 1,2 MD 1 Department of Pneumology, Cologne-Merheim Hospital, Kliniken der Stadt Köln ggmbh, Witten/Herdecke University Hospital, Cologne, Germany 2 Department of Pneumology, University Medical Hospital, Freiburg, Germany Correspondence and requests for reprints: Prof. Dr. Jan Hendrik Storre, M.D. Department of Pneumology, Cologne-Merheim Hospital Kliniken der Stadt Köln ggmbh, Witten/Herdecke University Hospital Ostmerheimer Strasse 200, D Cologne, Germany storrej@kliniken-koeln.de Tel.: , Fax:

3 Table: Prospective, randomized trials with humidified nasal High Flow Oxygen (HFO) 1-8 Study Design Patients Treatment Primary Outcome Cuquemelle E et al. (2012) 1 intensive care unit N=30 HFO (N=18) versus standard HFO improved patient comfort by reducing follow up: 24hours parallel treatment, following 4hours pneumonia, acute chest syndrom, pulmonary oxygen (N=12) nasal dryness, but did not improve nasal airway caliber. cross-over embolism, Rittayamiai N et al. (2014) 2 intensive care unit N=17 HFO versus standard oxygen HFO reduced dyspnea and resulted in a follow up: 60min, crossover pneumonia, AECOPD, congestive heart failure, by non-rebreathing mask (each 30min, respectively) lower breathing frequency and heart rate compared to conventional oxygen therapy. Maggiore SM et al. (2014) 3 intensive care unit N=105 HFO (N=53) versus standard HFO resulted in a better oxygenation for the follow up: 48hours pneumonia, multiple trauma, atelectasis, shock, oxygen by venturi mask (N=52) same set FIO 2, and is associated with better comfort, fewer desaturations and interface displacements, and a lower reintubation rate Rittayamiai N et al. (2015) 4 emergency department N=40 HFO versus conventional HFO resulted in less dyspnea and better follow up: 60min congestive heart failure, asthmatic attack AECOPD, pneumonia, oxygen therapy comfort compared with conventional oxygen therapy Lemiale V et al. (2015) 5 intensive care unit N=100 HFO (N=52) versus standard HFO improved neither mechanical follow up: 2hours, crossover immunosuppression following solid and hematological malignancy, HIV oxygen by venturi mask (N=48). ventilatory assistance nor patient comfort compared with standard oxygen in this underpowered study. infection, steroid treatment, 2

4 Stéphan F et al. (2015) 6 intensive care unit N=830 HFO (N=414) versus NIV HFO did not result in a worse rate of, crossover, Surgical procedures: (N=416) treatment failure compared to NIV. non-inferior coronary artery bypass grafting, valvular surgery, thoracic aorta, Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, Frat JP et al. (2015) 7 intensive care unit N=310 standard oxygen (N=94) HFO, standard oxygen, or NIV did not result follow up: 90 days community- or hospitalacquired versus HFO (N=106) versus in significantly different intubation rates. pneumonia, NIV (N=106) There was a significant difference in favor extrapulmonarysepsis, of HFO in 90-day mortality. Frat JP et al. (2016) 8 intensive care unit N=82 standard oxygen (N=30) NIV might be associated with an increased follow up: 90 days immunosuppression versus HFO (N=26) versus risk of intubation and mortality. post-hoc subgroup analysis of following hematologic NIV (N=26) prospective, randomized, and solid cancer, druginduced, controlled trial [7] HIV, AECOPD= acute exacerbated COPD, FIO 2 = fraction of inspired oxygen, HFO= humidified nasal High Flow Oxygen, min= minutes, NIV= noninvasive ventilation. 3

5 References: 1. Cuquemelle E, Pham T, Papon JF et al. Heated and humidified high-flow oxygen therapy reduces discomfort during hypoxemic respiratory failure. Respir Care 2012; 57: Rittayamai N, Tscheikuna J, Rujiwit P. High-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy after endotracheal extubation: a randomized crossover physiologic study. Respir Care 2014; 59: Maggiore SM, Idone FA, Vaschetto R et al. Nasal high-flow versus Venturi mask oxygen therapy after extubation. Effects on oxygenation, comfort, and clinical outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 190: Rittayamai N, Tscheikuna J, Praphruetkit N et al. Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Dyspnea and Hypoxemia in the Emergency Department. Respir Care 2015; 60: Lemiale V, Mokart D, Mayaux J et al. The effects of a 2-h trial of high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula versus Venturi mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized trial. Crit Care 2015; 19: Stéphan F, Barrucand B, Petit P et al. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Positive Airway Pressure in Hypoxemic Patients After Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015; 313: Frat J-P, Thille AW, Mercat A et al. High-Flow Oxygen through Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. N Engl J Med 2015; 272: Frat J-P, Ragot S, Giroult C et al. Impact of non-invasive oxygenation strategies in immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory failure: post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. Lancet Respir Med 2016; in press. 4