Rémi Coudroy1, Jean-Pierre Frat2, Stephan Ehrmann3, Frédéric Pène4, Maxens Decavèle5, Nicolas Terzi6, Gwenaël Prat7, Charlotte Garret8, Damien Contou9, Arnaud Gacouin10, Jeremy Bourenne11, Christophe Girault12, Christophe Vinsonneau13, Jean Dellamonica14, Guylaine Labro15, Sébastien Jochmans16, Alexandre Herbland17, Jean-Pierre Quenot18, Jérôme Devaquet19, Dalila Benzekri20, Emmanuel Vivier21, Saad Nseir22, Gwenhaël Colin23, Didier Thevenin24, Giacomo Grasselli25, David Bougon26, Mona Assefi27, Claude Guérin28, Thierry Lherm29, Achille Kouatchet30, Stephanie Ragot31, Arnaud W Thille2. 1. CHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France; INSERM CIC 1402, groupe ALIVE, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France. Electronic address: r.coudroy@yahoo.fr. 2. CHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France; INSERM CIC 1402, groupe ALIVE, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 3. CHRU de Tours, médecine Intensive Réanimation, CIC 1415, CRICS-TriggerSEP Research Network, Centre d'étude des Pathologies Respiratoires, INSERM U1100, Université de Tours, Tours, France. 4. Médecine Intensive & Réanimation, Hôpital Cochin, APHP Centre, Université de Paris, Paris, France. 5. Groupe Hospitalier Universitaire APHP-Sorbonne Université, site Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service Médecine Intensive et Réanimation (Département R3S), Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France. 6. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, INSERM, Université Grenoble-Alpes, U1042, HP2, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. 7. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, CHU de Brest, Brest, France. 8. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France. 9. Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Argenteuil, France. 10. Service des Maladies Infectieuses et Réanimation Médicale, CHU de Rennes, Hôpital Ponchaillou, Rennes, France. 11. CHU La Timone 2, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Réanimation des Urgences, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France. 12. Normandie Univ, UNIROUEN, EA 3830, Rouen University Hospital, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Rouen, France. 13. Service de Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier de Béthune, Beuvry, France. 14. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Nice, France; UR2CA Unité de Recherche Clinique Côte d'Azur, Université Cote d'Azur, Nice, France. 15. Medical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, Besançon, France. 16. Service de Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Sud-Ile-de France, Melun, France. 17. Service de Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Saint Louis, La Rochelle, France. 18. Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, CHU Dijon-Bourgogne, Dijon, France; Équipe Lipness, Centre de Recherche INSERM UMR1231 et LabEx LipSTIC, Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France; INSERM, CIC 1432, Module Épidémiologie Clinique, Université de Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Dijon, France. 19. Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, Hôpital Foch, Suresnes, France. 20. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Régional d'Orléans, Orléans, France. 21. Reanimation Polyvalente, Hôpital Saint Joseph Saint Luc, Lyon, France. 22. Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, CHU Lille, Lille, France; Inserm U1285, Univ Lille, CNRS, UMR 8576-UGSF-Unité de Glycobiologie Structurale et Fonctionnelle, Lille, France. 23. Service de Médecine Intensive et Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Départemental de Vendée, La Roche-sur-Yon, France. 24. Service de Réanimation Polyvalente, CH de Lens, Lens, France. 25. Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Emergency, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 26. Service de Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Annecy, France. 27. Sorbonne University, GRC 29, AP-HP, DMU DREAM, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 28. Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de La Croix-Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; INSERM 955, Créteil, France. 29. Medical ICU, Hospital of Chartres, Coudray, France. 30. Medical Intensive Care Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers, Angers, France. 31. INSERM CIC 1402, Biostatistics, Université de Poitiers, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU), it might have deleterious effects in the most severe patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alone might be an alternative method to reduce mortality. We aimed to determine whether HFNO alone could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 compared with HFNO alternated with NIV. METHODS: FLORALI-IM is a multicentre, open-label, randomised clinical trial conducted in 29 ICUs (28 in France and one in Italy). Adult immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, defined as respiratory rate of 25 breaths per min or more and a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen ratio of 300 mm Hg or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1) to HFNO alone (HFNO alone group) or NIV alternating with HFNO (NIV group). Key exclusion criteria were severe hypercapnia above 50 mm Hg, patients who could strongly benefit from NIV (ie, those with underlying chronic lung disease, with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, or who were postoperative), severe shock, impaired consciousness defined as Glasgow coma score ≤12, urgent need for intubation, do not intubate order, and contraindication to NIV. Patients were assigned using computer-generated permuted blocks and were stratified according to centre and to the type of immunosuppression using a centralised web-based management system. In the HFNO alone group, patients were continuously treated by HFNO with a gas flow rate of 60 L/min or the highest tolerated. In the NIV group, patients were treated with NIV with a first session of at least 4 h, and then by sessions for a minimal duration of 12 h a day, with a dedicated ventilator, targeting a tidal volume below 8 mL/kg of predicted bodyweight, and with a positive end-expiratory level of at least 8 cm H2O. NIV sessions were interspaced with HFNO delivered as in the HFNO alone group. The primary outcome was mortality at day 28 and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were mortality in the ICU, in hospital, at day 90 and at day 180, intubation at day 28, length of stay in the ICU and in hospital, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, number of oxygenation technique-free days at day 28, and efficacy and tolerance of oxygenation techniques. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02978300, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 21, 2017 to March 4, 2019, of 497 eligible patients, 300 were randomly assigned but one patient withdrew consent, leaving 299 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis (154 assigned to the HFNO alone group and 145 assigned to NIV group). Mortality rate at day 28 was 36% (95% CI 29·2 to 44·2; 56 of 154 patients) in the HFNO alone group and 35% (27·9 to 43·2; 51 of 145 patients) in the NIV group (absolute difference 1·2% [95% CI -9·6 to 11·9]; p=0·83). None of the other prespecified secondary outcomes were different between groups except for greater decreased discomfort after initiation of HFNO than with NIV (-4 mm on visual analogic scale [IQR -18 to 4] vs 0 mm [-16 to 17]; p=0·040). INTERPRETATION: In critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, the mortality rate did not differ between HFNO alone and NIV alternating with HFNO. However, study power was limited, so results should be interpreted with caution. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.
BACKGROUND: Although non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU), it might have deleterious effects in the most severe patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alone might be an alternative method to reduce mortality. We aimed to determine whether HFNO alone could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 compared with HFNO alternated with NIV. METHODS: FLORALI-IM is a multicentre, open-label, randomised clinical trial conducted in 29 ICUs (28 in France and one in Italy). Adult immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, defined as respiratory rate of 25 breaths per min or more and a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen ratio of 300 mm Hg or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1) to HFNO alone (HFNO alone group) or NIV alternating with HFNO (NIV group). Key exclusion criteria were severe hypercapnia above 50 mm Hg, patients who could strongly benefit from NIV (ie, those with underlying chronic lung disease, with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, or who were postoperative), severe shock, impaired consciousness defined as Glasgow coma score ≤12, urgent need for intubation, do not intubate order, and contraindication to NIV. Patients were assigned using computer-generated permuted blocks and were stratified according to centre and to the type of immunosuppression using a centralised web-based management system. In the HFNO alone group, patients were continuously treated by HFNO with a gas flow rate of 60 L/min or the highest tolerated. In the NIV group, patients were treated with NIV with a first session of at least 4 h, and then by sessions for a minimal duration of 12 h a day, with a dedicated ventilator, targeting a tidal volume below 8 mL/kg of predicted bodyweight, and with a positive end-expiratory level of at least 8 cm H2O. NIV sessions were interspaced with HFNO delivered as in the HFNO alone group. The primary outcome was mortality at day 28 and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were mortality in the ICU, in hospital, at day 90 and at day 180, intubation at day 28, length of stay in the ICU and in hospital, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, number of oxygenation technique-free days at day 28, and efficacy and tolerance of oxygenation techniques. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02978300, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 21, 2017 to March 4, 2019, of 497 eligible patients, 300 were randomly assigned but one patient withdrew consent, leaving 299 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis (154 assigned to the HFNO alone group and 145 assigned to NIV group). Mortality rate at day 28 was 36% (95% CI 29·2 to 44·2; 56 of 154 patients) in the HFNO alone group and 35% (27·9 to 43·2; 51 of 145 patients) in the NIV group (absolute difference 1·2% [95% CI -9·6 to 11·9]; p=0·83). None of the other prespecified secondary outcomes were different between groups except for greater decreased discomfort after initiation of HFNO than with NIV (-4 mm on visual analogic scale [IQR -18 to 4] vs 0 mm [-16 to 17]; p=0·040). INTERPRETATION: In critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, the mortality rate did not differ between HFNO alone and NIV alternating with HFNO. However, study power was limited, so results should be interpreted with caution. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.
Authors: Amit Kansal; Wei Jun Dan Ong; Shekhar Dhanvijay; Arbe Tisha Pepito Siosana; Loraine Mae Padillo; Chee Keat Tan; Monika Gulati Kansal; Faheem Ahmed Khan Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 3.320
Authors: Melania Cesarano; Domenico Luca Grieco; Teresa Michi; Laveena Munshi; Luca S Menga; Luca Delle Cese; Ersilia Ruggiero; Tommaso Rosà; Daniele Natalini; Michael C Sklar; Salvatore L Cutuli; Filippo Bongiovanni; Gennaro De Pascale; Bruno L Ferreyro; Ewan C Goligher; Massimo Antonelli Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 10.318