High-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or standard oxygen in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods We reviewed randomized controlled trials from CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to February 2016), conference proceedings, and relevant article reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted trial-level data from trials investigating HFNC in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, and pH. Safety outcomes included respiratory arrest, intubation, delirium, and skin breakdown. Results From 2023 screened citations, we identified seven trials (1771 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. There was no evidence for a mortality difference in patients receiving HFNC vs. NIV and/or standard oxygen (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48, I 2 = 63%, five trials, 1629 patients). In subgroup analyses of HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen individually, mortality differences were not observed. Measures of patient tolerability were heterogeneous. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 6–12 h was significantly lower in patients receiving oxygen via HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen for hypoxemic respiratory failure (MD − 53.34, 95% CI − 71.95 to − 34.72, I 2 = 61%, 1143 patients). There were no differences in pH, PaCO2, or rates of intubation or cardio-respiratory arrest. Delirium and skin breakdown were infrequently reported in included trials. Conclusions In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure HFNC was not associated with a difference in mortality compared to NIV or standard oxygen. Secondary outcomes including dyspnea, tolerance, and safety were not systematically reported. Residual heterogeneity and variable reporting of secondary outcomes limit the conclusions that can be made in this review. Prospective trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are required

Le Monde

26 juin 18661866/06/26 (A7,N172).Appartient à l’ensemble documentaire : BbLevt

Additional file 1 of Characterizing intubation practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) sites

Supplementary Material 1: CAMP COVID-19 Questionnair

Epidemiology of intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a retrospective cohort analysis of the Premier Healthcare Database

Purpose Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) may improve survival in people with septic shock. Current utilization patterns of IVIG are unknown. We sought to characterize adult patients with septic shock requiring vasopressors who received IVIG, describes IVIG regimens, and evaluate determinants of IVIG use in patients with septic shock. Methods We conducted a retrospective database study of adult patients with septic shock admitted to US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database (from July 2010 to June 2013). We described the proportion of patients with septic shock receiving IVIG, examined IVIG regimens across sites and employed random-effects multivariable regression techniques to identify predictors of IVIG use. Results Intravenous immune globulin was administered to 0.3% ( n = 685) of patients with septic shock; with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] dose of 1 [0.5–1.8] g·kg -1 for a median [IQR] of 1 [1–2] day. Receipt of IVIG was less likely for Black patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.72) and patients without private insurance (Medicare OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; Medicaid OR, 0.41; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57) and more likely for patients with immunocompromise (OR, 6.83; 95% CI 5.47 to 8.53), necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 9.78; 95% CI 6.97 to 13.72), and toxic shock (OR, 56.9; 95% CI 38.7 to 83.7). Conclusions Intravenous immune globulin is used infrequently across the US in patients with septic shock. Regimens of IVIG in septic shock may be less intensive than those associated with a survival benefit in meta-analyses. Observed infrequent use supports apparent clinical equipoise, perhaps secondary to limitations of the primary literature. A clinical trial evaluating the role of IVIG in septic shock is needed

Intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a Canadian national survey of critical care medicine and infectious disease specialist physicians

Purpose This national survey evaluated the perceived efficacy and safety of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) in septic shock, self-reported utilization patterns, barriers to use, the population of interest for further trials and willingness to participate in future research of IVIG in septic shock. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians across Canada. We summarized categorical item responses as counts and proportions. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify physician-level predictors of IVIG use in septic shock. Results Our survey was disseminated to 674 eligible respondents with a final response rate of 60%. Most (91%) respondents reported having prescribed IVIG to patients with septic shock at least once, 86% for septic shock due to necrotizing fasciitis, 52% for other bacterial toxin-mediated causes of septic shock, and 5% for undifferentiated septic shock. The majority of respondents expressed uncertainty regarding the impact of IVIG on mortality (97%) and safety (95%) in septic shock. Respondents were willing to participate in further IVIG research with 98% stating they would consider enrolling their patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock. Familiarity with published evidence was the single greatest predictor of IVIG use in septic shock (odds ratio, 10.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.4 to 30.5; P < 0.001). Conclusions Most Canadian critical care and infectious diseases specialist physicians reported previous experience using IVIG in septic shock. Respondents identified inadequacy of existing research as the greatest barrier to routine use of IVIG in septic shock. Most respondents support the need for further studies on IVIG in septic shock, and would consider enrolling their own patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock

A brain-based definition of death and criteria for its determination after arrest of circulation or neurologic function in Canada: a 2023 clinical practice guideline [Une definition cerebrale du deces et des criteres pour sa determination apres l'arret de la circulation ou de la fonction neurologique au Canada: des lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2023]

This 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline provides the biomedical definition of death based on permanent cessation of brain function that applies to all persons, as well as recommendations for death determination by circulatory criteria for potential organ donors and death determination by neurologic criteria for all mechanically ventilated patients regardless of organ donation potential. This Guideline is endorsed by the Canadian Critical Care Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses, Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society, the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation (representing the Canadian Neurological Society, Canadian Neurosurgical Society, Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists, Canadian Association of Child Neurology, Canadian Society of Neuroradiology, and Canadian Stroke Consortium), Canadian Blood Services, the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Nurse Practitioners Association of Canada, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society.</p