Resumen de Switches in non-invasive respiratory support strategies during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Need to monitoring from a retrospective observational study

Francisco José Parrilla Gómez, Judith Marín-Corral, Andrea Castellví Font, Purificación Pérez Teran, Lucía Picazo Moreno, Jorge Ravelo Barba, Marta Campano García, Olimpia Festa, Marcos I. Restrepo, Joan Ramon Masclans Enviz

• español

  Objetivo Explorar los patrones combinados de soporte-respiratorio-no-invasivo (SRNI), las razones para cambiar de SRNI y su potencial impacto en los resultados clínicos en pacientes con insuficiencia-respiratoria-aguda-hipoxémica (IRAH).

  Diseño Estudio observacional retrospectivo unicéntrico.

  Ámbito Cuidados Intensivos.

  Pacientes Pacientes con IRAH (excluyendo causa cardíaca y acidosis respiratoria) que recibieron tanto ventilación-no-invasiva (VNI) como cánula-nasal-de-alto-flujo (CNAF).

  Intervenciones Se categorizó a los pacientes según el primer cambio de SRNI realizado (CNAF-to-VNI o VNI-to-CNAF) y se evaluaron estrategias específicas de SRNI (VNI trial-like vs. Non-VNI trial-like y cambio único vs. múltiples cambios de NIRS) de manera independiente.

  Variables de interés principales Razones para el cambio, así como las tasas de fracaso de SRNI y la mortalidad.

  Resultados Un total de 63 pacientes recibieron SRNI combinado, 58,7% clasificados en el grupo CNAF-to-VNI y 41,3% en el grupo VNI-to-CNAF. Los cambios de CNAF a VNI ocurrieron por empeoramiento de la IRHA (100%) y de VNI a CNAF por mejora respiratoria (76.9%). Las tasas de fracaso de SRNI fueron mayores de CNAF a VNI que de VNI a CNAF (81% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). Dentro de los pacientes de CNAF a VNI, no hubo diferencia en las tasas de fracaso entre los grupos VNI trial-like y no-VNI trial-like (86% vs. 78%, p = 0.575), pero la mortalidad fue menor en el grupo VNI trial-like (14% vs. 52%, p = 0.02). Dentro de los pacientes de VNI a CNAF, el fracaso de VNI fue menor en grupo de cambio único vs. múltiple (15% vs. 53%, p = 0.039).

  Conclusiones Los cambios de estrategia de SRNI son comunes en el manejo clínico diario de la IRHA. El cambio de CNAF a VNI impresiona de ser una escalada terapéutica y en este contexto la realización de un VNI-trial puede ser beneficioso. Al contrario, cambiar de VNI a CNAF impresiona de ser una desescalada terapéutica y parece segura si no hay fracaso del SRNI.

• English

  Objective To explore combined non-invasive-respiratory-support (NIRS) patterns, reasons for NIRS switching, and their potential impact on clinical outcomes in acute-hypoxemic-respiratory-failure (AHRF) patients.

  Design Retrospective, single-center observational study.

  Setting Intensive Care Medicine.

  Patients AHRF patients (cardiac origin and respiratory acidosis excluded) underwent combined NIRS therapies such as non-invasive-ventilation (NIV) and High-Flow-Nasal-Cannula (HFNC).

  Interventions Patients were classified based on the first NIRS switch performed (HFNC-to-NIV or NIV-to-HFNC), and further specific NIRS switching strategies (NIV trial-like vs. Non-NIV trial-like and single vs. multiples switches) were independently evaluated.

  Main variables of interest Reasons for switching, NIRS failure and mortality rates.

  Results A total of 63 patients with AHRF were included, receiving combined NIRS, 58.7% classified in the HFNC-to-NIV group and 41.3% in the NIV-to-HFNC group. Reason for switching from HFNC to NIV was AHRF worsening (100%), while from NIV to HFNC was respiratory improvement (76.9%). NIRS failure rates were higher in the HFNC-to-NIV than in NIV-to-HFNC group (81% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). Among HFNC-to-NIV patients, there was no difference in the failure rate between the NIV trial-like and non-NIV trial-like groups (86% vs. 78%, p = 0.575) but the mortality rate was significantly lower in NIV trial-like group (14% vs. 52%, p = 0.02). Among NIV to HFNC patients, NIV failure was lower in the single switch group compared to the multiple switches group (15% vs. 53%, p = 0.039), with a shorter length of stay (5 [2–8] vs. 12 [8–30] days, p = 0.001).

  Conclusions NIRS combination is used in real life and both switches’ strategies, HFNC to NIV and NIV to HFNC, are common in AHRF management. Transitioning from HFNC to NIV is suggested as a therapeutic escalation and in this context performance of a NIV-trial could be beneficial. Conversely, switching from NIV to HFNC is suggested as a de-escalation strategy that is deemed safe if there is no NIRS failure.