The use of high-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in hematological malignancy patients with acute respiratory failure in hematology wards
Acute respiratory failure
high flow nasal oxygen
hematological malignancy
Journal
Turkish journal of medical sciences
ISSN: 1303-6165
Titre abrégé: Turk J Med Sci
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 9441758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 08 2021
30 08 2021
Historique:
received:
21
07
2020
accepted:
30
01
2021
entrez:
1
2
2021
pubmed:
2
2
2021
medline:
1
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was mostly used in intensive care units (ICUs) with few studies in other departments. We hypothesized that HFNC applied at wards is beneficial for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients. The study is a single center, randomized controlled study. Inclusion criteria were hypoxemic respiratory failure and hematological malignancy. Patients were randomized to either venturi mask/nasal cannula oxygen treatment or HFNC. One hundred patients were included in the study. Median age was 58.5 (18–86) years and APACHE II score was 17 (5–29). HFNC group was 51 patients and the oxygen treatment group 49 patients. P/F ratios were similar between the groups throughout the study period. Endotracheal intubation was required in 10 (20.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group (p = 0.14). A total of 17 (35.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group received noninvasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.97). Median VAS comfort scores at the 2nd and 24th hours were not different between groups. The 28-day mortality rate was 36.7% (18 deaths) in the standard group and 45.0% (23 deaths) in the HFNC group (p = 0.39). HFNC applied in wards is not superior to standard oxygen treatment for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.
Sections du résumé
Background/aim
High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was mostly used in intensive care units (ICUs) with few studies in other departments. We hypothesized that HFNC applied at wards is beneficial for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.
Materials and methods
The study is a single center, randomized controlled study. Inclusion criteria were hypoxemic respiratory failure and hematological malignancy. Patients were randomized to either venturi mask/nasal cannula oxygen treatment or HFNC.
Results
One hundred patients were included in the study. Median age was 58.5 (18–86) years and APACHE II score was 17 (5–29). HFNC group was 51 patients and the oxygen treatment group 49 patients. P/F ratios were similar between the groups throughout the study period. Endotracheal intubation was required in 10 (20.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group (p = 0.14). A total of 17 (35.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group received noninvasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.97). Median VAS comfort scores at the 2nd and 24th hours were not different between groups. The 28-day mortality rate was 36.7% (18 deaths) in the standard group and 45.0% (23 deaths) in the HFNC group (p = 0.39).
Conclusion
HFNC applied in wards is not superior to standard oxygen treatment for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33517607
doi: 10.3906/sag-2007-228
pmc: PMC8569805
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxygen
S88TT14065
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1756-1763Informations de copyright
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Références
Chest. 2017 Apr;151(4):764-775
pubmed: 28089816
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct 15;182(8):1038-46
pubmed: 20581167
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 1;31(22):2810-8
pubmed: 23752112
J Crit Care. 2012 Jun;27(3):324.e9-13
pubmed: 21958974
Crit Care Med. 2008 Oct;36(10):2766-72
pubmed: 18766110
Intensive Care Med. 2011 Nov;37(11):1780-6
pubmed: 21946925
JAMA. 2015 Oct 27;314(16):1711-9
pubmed: 26444879
N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb 15;344(7):481-7
pubmed: 11172189
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 10;29(11):1445-51
pubmed: 21383289
Chest. 2014 Aug;146(2):257-266
pubmed: 24480886
Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2018 Dec;11(4):206-218
pubmed: 29684341
Respir Care. 2019 Nov;64(11):1333-1342
pubmed: 31213571
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015 Jun 15;118(12):1525-32
pubmed: 25882385
Crit Care. 2012 Jul 24;16(4):R133
pubmed: 22827955
Intensive Care Med. 2009 Mar;35(3):512-8
pubmed: 18853139
Respir Care. 2012 Oct;57(10):1571-7
pubmed: 22417569
Rev Port Pneumol. 2013 Sep-Oct;19(5):217-27
pubmed: 23845744
Respir Care. 2012 Nov;57(11):1873-8
pubmed: 22417844
Respir Care. 2015 Oct;60(10):1390-6
pubmed: 26106206
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Aug;15(9):931-42
pubmed: 25030467
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011 Aug;64(8):723-5
pubmed: 21497974
JAMA. 2018 Nov 27;320(20):2099-2107
pubmed: 30357270
Crit Care. 2015 Nov 02;19:380
pubmed: 26521922
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Sep;40(9):1275-84
pubmed: 24972886
Chest. 2015 Jul;148(1):253-261
pubmed: 25742321
Intensive Care Med. 2019 May;45(5):563-572
pubmed: 30888444
Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Aug;4(8):646-652
pubmed: 27245914
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Aug 1;190(3):282-8
pubmed: 25003980
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2185-96
pubmed: 25981908
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Dec;43(12):1808-1819
pubmed: 28948369
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019 May 23;31(2):156-163
pubmed: 31141082