Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation on Tracheal Reintubation Among Patients With Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Following Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienceIMPORTANCE: It has not been established whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who develop hypoxemic acute respiratory failure after abdominal surgery.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether noninvasive ventilation improves outcomes among patients developing hypoxemic acute respiratory failure after abdominal surgery.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial conducted between May 2013 and September 2014 in 20 French intensive care units among 293 patients who had undergone abdominal surgery and developed hypoxemic respiratory failure (partial oxygen pressure \textless60 mm Hg or oxygen saturation [SpO2] ≤90% when breathing room air or \textless80 mm Hg when breathing 15 L/min of oxygen, plus either [1] a respiratory rate above 30/min or [2] clinical signs suggestive of intense respiratory muscle work and/or labored breathing) if it occurred within 7 days after surgical procedure.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard oxygen therapy (up to 15 L/min to maintain SpO2 of 94% or higher) (n = 145) or NIV delivered via facial mask (inspiratory pressure support level, 5-15 cm H2O; positive end-expiratory pressure, 5-10 cm H2O; fraction of inspired oxygen titrated to maintain SpO2 ≥94%) (n = 148).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was tracheal reintubation for any cause within 7 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes were gas exchange, invasive ventilation-free days at day 30, health care-associated infections, and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Among the 293 patients (mean age, 63.4 [SD, 13.8] years; n=224 men) included in the intention-to-treat analysis, reintubation occurred in 49 of 148 (33.1%) in the NIV group and in 66 of 145 (45.5%) in the standard oxygen therapy group within+ 7 days after randomization (absolute difference, -12.4%; 95% CI, -23.5% to -1.3%; P = .03). Noninvasive ventilation was associated with significantly more invasive ventilation-free days compared with standard oxygen therapy (25.4 vs 23.2 days; absolute difference, -2.2 days; 95% CI, -0.1 to 4.6 days; P = .04), while fewer patients developed health care-associated infections (43/137 [31.4%] vs 63/128 [49.2%]; absolute difference, -17.8%; 95% CI, -30.2% to -5.4%; P = .003). At 90 days, 22 of 148 patients (14.9%) in the NIV group and 31 of 144 (21.5%) in the standard oxygen therapy group had died (absolute difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -16.0% to 3.0%; P = .15). There were no significant differences in gas exchange.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure following abdominal surgery, use of NIV compared with standard oxygen therapy reduced the risk of tracheal reintubation within 7 days. These findings support use of NIV in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT0197189

Multicentre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial comparing different non-opioid analgesic combinations with morphine for postoperative analgesia: the OCTOPUS study

International audienceBackground: Head-to-head comparisons of combinations of more than one non-opioid analgesic (NOA) with morphine alone, for postoperative analgesia, are lacking. The objective of this multicentre, randomised, double-blind controlled trial was to compare the morphine-sparing effects of different combinations of three NOAs-paracetamol (P), nefopam (N), and ketoprofen (K)-for postoperative analgesia. Methods: Patients from 10 hospitals were randomised to one of eight groups: control (C) received saline as placebo, P, N, K, PN, PK, NK, and PNK. Treatments were given intravenously four times a day during the first 48 h after surgery, and morphine patient-controlled analgesia was used as rescue analgesia. The outcome measures were morphine consumption, pain scores, and morphine-related side-effects evaluated 24 and 48 h after surgery. Results: Two hundred and thirty-seven patients undergoing a major surgical procedure were included between July 2013 and November 2016. Despite a failure to reach a calculated sample size, 24 h morphine consumption [median (interquartile range)] was significantly reduced in the PNK group [5 (1-11) mg] compared with either the C group [27 (11-42) mg; P<0.05] or the N group [21 (12-29) mg; P<0.05]. Results were similar 48 h after surgery. Patients experienced less pain in the PNK group compared with the C, N, and P groups. No difference was observed in the incidence of morphine-related side-effects. Conclusions: Combining three NOAs with morphine allows a significant morphine sparing for 48 h after surgery associated with superior analgesia the first 24 h when compared with morphine alone

Determinants of procedural pain intensity in the intensive care unit: the Europain® study

Rationale:Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures every day. The prevalence, intensity, and risk factors of pain related to these procedures are not well known. Objectives: To assess self-reported procedural pain intensity versus baseline pain, examine pain intensity differences across procedures, and identify risk factors for procedural pain intensity. Methods: Prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational study of pain intensity associated with 12 procedures. Data were obtained from 3,851 patients who underwent 4,812 procedures in 192 ICUs in 28 countries. Measurements andMain Results: Painintensity on a 0–10 numeric rating scale increased significantly from baseline pain during all procedures (P , 0.001). Chest tube removal, wound drain removal, and arterial line insertion were the three most painful procedures, with median pain scores of 5 (3–7), 4.5 (2–7), and 4 (2–6), respectively. By multivariate analysis, risk factors independently associated with greater procedural pain intensity were the specific procedure; opioid administration specifically for the procedure; preprocedural pain intensity; preprocedural pain distress; intensity of the worst pain on the same day, before the procedure; and procedure not performed by a nurse. A significant ICU effect was observed, with no visible effect of country because of its absorption by the ICU effect. Some of the risk factors became nonsignificant when each procedure was examined separately. Conclusions: Knowledge of risk factors for greater procedural pain intensity identified in this study may help clinicians select interventions that are needed to minimize procedural pain. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01070082)