In patients with nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with high-flow oxygen, standard oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation did not result in significantly different intubation rates. There was a significant difference in favor of high-flow oxygen in 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interrégional 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; FLORALI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01320384.).

High-flow nasal oxygen may prevent postextubation respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). The combination of high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be an optimal strategy of ventilation to avoid reintubation. OBJECTIVE To determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen with prophylactic NIV applied immediately after extubation could reduce the rate of reintubation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone, in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted from April 2017 to January 2018 among 641 patients at high risk of extubation failure (ie, older than 65 years or with an underlying cardiac or respiratory disease) at 30 ICUs in France; follow-up was until April 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to high-flow nasal oxygen alone (n = 306) or high-flow nasal oxygen alternating with NIV (n = 342) immediately after extubation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients reintubated at day 7; secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure at day 7, reintubation rates up until ICU discharge, and ICU mortality. RESULTS Among 648 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 70 [10] years; 219 women [34%]), 641 patients completed the trial. The reintubation rate at day 7 was 11.8% (95% CI, 8.4%-15.2%) (40/339) with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 18.2% (95% CI, 13.9%-22.6%) (55/302) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, −6.4% [95% CI, −12.0% to −0.9%]; P = .02). Among the 11 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. The proportion of patients with postextubation respiratory failure at day 7 (21% vs 29%; difference, −8.7% [95% CI, −15.2% to −1.8%]; P = .01) and reintubation rates up until ICU discharge (12% vs 20%, difference −7.4% [95% CI, −13.2% to −1.8%]; P = .009) were significantly lower with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. ICU mortality rates were not significantly different: 6% with high-flow nasal oxygen and NIV and 9% with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, −2.4% [95% CI, −6.7% to 1.7%]; P = .25). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of extubation failure, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen with NIV immediately after extubation significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.

No abstract

In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure breathing spontaneously, the respiratory rate was a predictor of intubation under standard oxygen, but not under high-flow nasal cannula oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. A PaO2/FIO2 below 200 mm Hg and a high tidal volume greater than 9 mL/kg were the two strong predictors of intubation under noninvasive ventilation.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of humidified oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) alternating with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in a 12-bed ICU of a university hospital. All subjects with a P aO 2 /F IO 2 of < 300 mm Hg with standard mask oxygen and a breathing frequency of > 30 breaths/min or signs of respiratory distress were included and treated with HFNC first and then NIV. Ventilatory parameters, blood gases, and tolerance were recorded during 2 consecutive sessions of NIV and HFNC. Outcome was assessed after continuation of this noninvasive strategy. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects with AHRF were studied, including 23 (82%) with ARDS. Compared with standard oxygen therapy, P aO 2 significantly increased from 83 (68 -97) mm Hg to 108 (83-140) mm Hg using HFNC and to 125 (97-200) mm Hg using NIV (P < .01), whereas breathing frequency significantly decreased. HFNC was significantly better tolerated than NIV, with a lower score on the visual analog scale. The nonintubated subjects received HFNC for 75 (27-127) h and NIV for 23 (8 -31) h. Intubation was required in 10 of 28 subjects (36%), including 8 of 23 subjects with ARDS (35%). After HFNC initiation, a breathing frequency of > 30 breaths/min was an early factor associated with intubation. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC was better tolerated than NIV and allowed for significant improvement in oxygenation and tachypnea compared with standard oxygen therapy in subjects with AHRF, a large majority of whom had ARDS. Thus, HFNC may be used between NIV sessions to avoid marked impairment of oxygenation. Key words: acute respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); noninvasive ventilation; nasal high-flow oxygen therapy; intensive care unit (ICU). [Respir Care 2015;60(2):170 -178.

Platelets homozygous for the Pl(A1) allele appear to be less sensitive to inhibitory action of low-dose aspirin. This differential sensitivity to aspirin may have potential clinical implications whereby specific antiplatelet therapy may be best tailored according to the patient's Pl(A) genotype.

Admission plasma glucose, even after adjustment on HbA(1c), is a prognostic factor associated with mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Acute rather than the chronic pre-existing glycometabolic state accounts for the prognosis after acute myocardial infarction.

Background: Although chlorhexidine-based solutions and alcohol-based povidone-iodine have been shown to be more efficient than aqueous povidone-iodine for skin disinfection at catheter insertion sites, their abilities to reduce catheter-related infection have never been compared. Methods: Consecutively scheduled central venous catheters inserted into jugular or subclavian veins were randomly assigned to be disinfected with 5% povidoneiodine in 70% ethanol or with a combination of 0.25% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.025% benzalkonium chloride, and 4% benzylic alcohol. Solutions were used for skin disinfection before catheter insertion (2 consecutive 30-second applications separated by a period sufficiently long to allow for dryness) and then as single applications during subsequent dressing changes (every 72 hours, or earlier if soiled or wet). Results: Of 538 catheters randomized, 481 (89.4%) produced evaluable culture results. Compared with povidoneiodine, the chlorhexidine-based solution was associated with a 50% decrease in the incidence of catheter colonization (11.6% vs 22.2% [P=.002]; incidence density, 9.7 vs 18.3 per 1000 catheter-days) and with a trend toward lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (1.7% vs 4.2% [P=.09]; incidence density, 1.4 vs 3.4 per 1000 catheter-days). Independent risk factors for catheter colonization were catheter insertion into the jugular vein (adjusted relative risk, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.24) and use of povidone-iodine (adjusted relative risk, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.96). Conclusion: Chlorhexidine-based solutions should be considered as a replacement for povidone-iodine (including alcohol-based) formulations in efforts to prevent catheter-related infection.