Comparison of three respiratory support methods in early post-extubation period in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective randomized study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Objective. To assess the efficacy of preventive high-flow oxygenation and non-invasive ventilation in early post-extubation period compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with ARDS. Material and methods. A prospective randomized single-center study enrolled 61 adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours and met the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome. After successful 120-minute spontaneous breathing trial test, patients were randomized into three groups of post-extubation respiratory support: standard oxygen therapy through a face mask, high-flow oxygenation through nasal cannula or non-invasive pressure support ventilation. The active follow-up period was 48 hours with assessment of blood gases, hemodynamics, and respiratory status. The need for reintubation and its causes were recorded for 7 days. Results. All groups did not differ in age, gender, severity of organ dysfunction and ventilation time. The overall rate of reintubation within 7 days was 23% (14/61) (15% in the high-flow oxygenation and non-invasive ventilation groups, 38% in the standard oxygen therapy group). When all causes of reintubation were analyzed, we found no between-group differences (p=0.094). When non-respiratory causes were excluded, we found significantly less incidence of reintubation after high-flow oxygenation or non-invasive ventilation in early post-extubation period (p=0.033). Length of ICU- and hospital-stay, as well as mortality rate did not differ between groups. Conclusion. In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, preventive high-flow oxygenation or non-invasive ventilation in early post-extubation period is associated with less incidence of reintubation for respiratory causes compared to standard oxygen therapy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.