Purpose High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings. Methods We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions. Results The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty). Conclusions This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionIn patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and/or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed a consistent trend of mortality reduction with prone ventilation. We updated a meta-analysis on this topic.MethodsRCTs that compared ventilation of adult patients with ALI/ARDS in prone versus supine position were included in this study-level meta-analysis. Analysis was made by a random-effects model. The effect size on intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was computed in the overall included studies and in two subgroups of studies: those that included all ALI or hypoxemic patients, and those that restricted inclusion to only ARDS patients. A relationship between studies' effect size and daily prone duration was sought with meta-regression. We also computed the effects of prone positioning on major adverse airway complications.ResultsSeven RCTs (including 1,675 adult patients, of whom 862 were ventilated in the prone position) were included. The four most recent trials included only ARDS patients, and also applied the longest proning durations and used lung-protective ventilation. The effects of prone positioning differed according to the type of study. Overall, prone ventilation did not reduce ICU mortality (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 1.2; P = 0.39), but it significantly reduced the ICU mortality in the four recent studies that enrolled only patients with ARDS (odds ratio = 0.71; 95% confidence interval = 0.5 to 0.99; P = 0.048; number needed to treat = 11). Meta-regression on all studies disclosed only a trend to explain effect variation by prone duration (P = 0.06). Prone positioning was not associated with a statistical increase in major airway complications.ConclusionsLong duration of ventilation in prone position significantly reduces ICU mortality when only ARDS patients are considered.

Prone position is not associated with a significant reduction in mortality from ALI/ARDS despite a significant increase in PaO(2)/FiO(2), is safe, and tends to decrease VAP. Published studies exhibit substantial clinical heterogeneity, suggesting that an adequately sized study optimising the duration of proning and ventilation strategy is warranted to enable definitive conclusions to be drawn.

NT-proBNP and troponin T are useful in excluding AECOPD associated with left ventricular dysfunction. NT-proBNP was the more accurate of the two.

Dystrophic lesions are frequently present in PSP. They are not associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Recommendation of the use of systemic steroids in chronic obstructive disease (COPD) exacerbation rely on trials that excluded patients requiring ventilatory support.In an open-label, randomised evaluation of oral prednisone administration, 217 patients with acute COPD exacerbation requiring ventilatory support were randomised (with stratification on the type of ventilation) to usual care (n5106) or to receive a daily dose of prednisone (1 mg?kg -1 ) for up to 10 days (n5111).There was no difference regarding the primary end-point, intensive care unit mortality, which was 17 (15.3%) deaths versus 15 (14%) deaths in the steroid-treated and control groups, respectively (relative risk 1.08, 95% CI 0.6-2.05). Analysis according to ventilation modalities showed similar mortality rates. Noninvasive ventilation failed in 15.7% and 12.7% (relative risk 1.25, 95% CI 0.56-2.8; p50.59), respectively. Both study groups had similar median mechanical ventilation duration and intensive care unit length of stay, which were 6 (interquartile range 6-12) days versus 6 (3.8-12) days and 9 (6-14) days versus 8 (6-14) days, respectively. Hyperglycaemic episodes requiring initiation or alteration of current insulin doses occurred in 55 (49.5%) patients versus 35 (33%) patients in the prednisone and control groups, respectively (relative risk 1.5, 95% CI 1.08-2.08; p50.015).Prednisone did not improve intensive care unit mortality or patient-centred outcomes in the selected subgroup of COPD patients with severe exacerbation but significantly increased the risk of hyperglycaemia. @ERSpublications In COPD exacerbation needing ventilatory support, prednisone has no impact on ICU mortality or related patient outcome