¿Cómo seleccionar el soporte respiratorio después de la extubación?

Artículo

Autor: Jean-Michel Arnal, intensivista jefe del Hôpital Sainte Musse, Toulon, Francia

Fecha: 04.12.2023

Estudios recientes sugieren que la elección del soporte respiratorio después de la extubación puede basarse en el riesgo de fracaso de la retirada asociado a cada paciente.

¿Cómo seleccionar el soporte respiratorio después de la extubación?

En el estudio WEAN SAFE, se registró un fracaso de la extubación (entendido como la necesidad de reintubación en un plazo de 7 días después de la extubación) en el 14 % de los pacientes incluidos (Pham T, Heunks L, Bellani G, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study [la corrección publicada aparece en Lancet Respir Med. 2023 Mar;11(3):e25]. Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(5):465-476. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00449-01). Además, el 30 % de los pacientes a los que se volvió a intubar terminaron falleciendo. La fisiopatología del fracaso de la extubación es compleja y suele haber múltiples mecanismos asociados en un mismo paciente (Roca O, Blanch L, Hernández G. Postextubation Respiratory Support: One More Piece to the Puzzle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;206(12):1437-1438. doi:10.1164/rccm.202208-1485ED2). Existen diversos tipos de soporte respiratorio después de la extubación disponibles para evitar la reintubación del paciente. Aunque la mejor estrategia sería personalizar la asistencia respiratoria después de la extubación en función del paciente, un amplio número de ensayos controlados aleatorizados realizados recientemente ha demostrado que la selección se puede basar en el riesgo de fracaso de la extubación (Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, et al. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.27113, Hernández G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, et al. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial [la corrección publicada aparece en JAMA. 2016 Nov 15;316(19):2047-2048] [la corrección publicada aparece en JAMA. 2017 Feb 28;317(8):858]. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1565-1574. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.141944, Maggiore SM, Jaber S, Grieco DL, et al. High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;206(12):1452-1462. doi:10.1164/rccm.202201-0065OC5, Hernández G, Vaquero C, Ortiz R, et al. Benefit with preventive noninvasive ventilation in subgroups of patients at high-risk for reintubation: a post hoc analysis. J Intensive Care. 2022;10(1):43. Publicado el 11 sep 2022. doi:10.1186/s40560-022-00635-26, Hernández G, Paredes I, Moran F, et al. Effect of postextubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial [la corrección publicada aparece en Intensive Care Med. 2023 Mar;49(3):385]. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(12):1751-1759. doi:10.1007/s00134-022-06919-37).

Riesgo de fracaso muy bajo

Pacientes con riesgo de reintubación muy bajo: Flujo bajo de oxígeno

Criterios de riesgo muy bajo

Paciente con ventilación durante menos de 48 horas
Paciente menor de 65 años
Ausencia de insuficiencia cardíaca como indicador principal para la ventilación mecánica
Ausencia de EPOC
Puntuación APACHE II inferior a 12 puntos el día de la extubación
Índice de masa corporal inferior a 30
Ausencia de problemas de permeabilidad de las vías aéreas
Capacidad para gestionar las secreciones respiratorias
Duración de la retirada corta (≤1 día)
Menos de dos enfermedades concomitantes

Riesgo de fracaso bajo e intermedio

Pacientes con riesgo de reintubación bajo e intermedio: Terapia nasal de flujo alto (20–50 l/min) durante 24 horas

Criterios de riesgo bajo

Paciente con ventilación durante menos de 7 días
Paciente menor de 65 años
Ausencia de insuficiencia cardíaca como indicador principal para la ventilación mecánica
Ausencia de EPOC
Puntuación APACHE II inferior a 12 puntos el día de la extubación
Índice de masa corporal inferior a 30
Ausencia de problemas de permeabilidad de las vías aéreas
Capacidad para gestionar las secreciones respiratorias
Duración de la retirada corta (≤1 día)
Menos de dos enfermedades concomitantes

Riesgo intermedio: Uno de los criterios siguientes:

Paciente mayor de 65 años
Insuficiencia cardíaca como indicador principal para la ventilación mecánica
EPOC moderada a grave
Puntuación APACHE II superior a 12 puntos el día de la extubación
Índice de masa corporal superior a 30
Problemas de permeabilidad de las vías aéreas, incluido un alto riesgo de desarrollar edema laríngeo
Incapacidad para gestionar las secreciones respiratorias (reflejo tusígeno inadecuado o aspiración >2 veces durante las 8 horas anteriores a la extubación)
Duración de la retirada intermedia o prolongada
Dos o más enfermedades concomitantes
Ventilación mecánica durante más de 7 días

Riesgo de fracaso alto

Pacientes con riesgo de reintubación alto: NIV + terapia nasal de flujo alto (20–50 l/min) entre sesiones de NIV durante 48 horas

Riesgo alto: Al menos cuatro de los criterios siguientes:

Paciente mayor de 65 años
Insuficiencia cardíaca como indicador principal para la ventilación mecánica
EPOC de moderada a grave
Puntuación APACHE II superior a 12 puntos el día de la extubación
Índice de masa corporal superior a 30
Problemas de permeabilidad de las vías aéreas, incluido un alto riesgo de desarrollar edema laríngeo
Incapacidad para gestionar las secreciones respiratorias (reflejo tusígeno inadecuado o aspiración necesaria >2 veces durante las 8 horas anteriores a la extubación)
Duración de la retirada intermedia o prolongada
Dos o más enfermedades concomitantes
Ventilación mecánica durante más de 7 días
Hipercapnia (PaCO2 >45 mmHg) al final de la prueba de retirada

Notas al pie

Referencias

1. Pham T, Heunks L, Bellani G, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study [published correction appears in Lancet Respir Med. 2023 Mar;11(3):e25]. Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(5):465-476. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00449-0
2. Roca O, Blanch L, Hernández G. Postextubation Respiratory Support: One More Piece to the Puzzle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;206(12):1437-1438. doi:10.1164/rccm.202208-1485ED
3. Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, et al. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2711
4. Hernández G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, et al. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2016 Nov 15;316(19):2047-2048] [published correction appears in JAMA. 2017 Feb 28;317(8):858]. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1565-1574. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14194
5. Maggiore SM, Jaber S, Grieco DL, et al. High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;206(12):1452-1462. doi:10.1164/rccm.202201-0065OC
6. Hernández G, Vaquero C, Ortiz R, et al. Benefit with preventive noninvasive ventilation in subgroups of patients at high-risk for reintubation: a post hoc analysis. J Intensive Care. 2022;10(1):43. Published 2022 Sep 11. doi:10.1186/s40560-022-00635-2
7. Hernández G, Paredes I, Moran F, et al. Effect of postextubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2023 Mar;49(3):385]. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(12):1751-1759. doi:10.1007/s00134-022-06919-3

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study.

Pham T, Heunks L, Bellani G, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study [published correction appears in Lancet Respir Med. 2023 Mar;11(3):e25]. Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(5):465-476. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00449-0

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36693401/

BACKGROUND Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. FINDINGS Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0-4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2-6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. INTERPRETATION In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. FUNDING European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society.

Postextubation Respiratory Support: One More Piece to the Puzzle.

Roca O, Blanch L, Hernández G. Postextubation Respiratory Support: One More Piece to the Puzzle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;206(12):1437-1438. doi:10.1164/rccm.202208-1485ED

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36018568/

Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, et al. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2711

Link to article

IMPORTANCE Studies of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients that combine populations that are at high and low risk for reintubation suggest that conditioned high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy after extubation improves oxygenation compared with conventional oxygen therapy. However, conclusive data about reintubation are lacking. OBJECTIVE To determine whether high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy for preventing reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients at low risk for reintubation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted between September 2012 and October 2014 in 7 intensive care units (ICUs) in Spain. Participants were 527 adult critical patients at low risk for reintubation who fulfilled criteria for planned extubation. Low risk for reintubation was defined as younger than 65 years; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score less than 12 on day of extubation; body mass index less than 30; adequate secretions management; simple weaning; 0 or 1 comorbidity; and absence of heart failure, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to undergo either high-flow or conventional oxygen therapy for 24 hours after extubation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was reintubation within 72 hours, compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis and multiorgan failure, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation. RESULTS Of 527 patients (mean age, 51 years [range, 18-64]; 62% men), 264 received high-flow therapy and 263 conventional oxygen therapy. Reintubation within 72 hours was less common in the high-flow group (13 patients [4.9%] vs 32 [12.2%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 2.5% to 12.2%]; P = .004). Postextubation respiratory failure was less common in the high-flow group (22/264 patients [8.3%] vs 38/263 [14.4%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 0.7% to 11.6%]; P = .03). Time to reintubation was not significantly different between groups (19 hours [interquartile range, 12-28] in the high-flow group vs 15 hours [interquartile range, 9-31] in the conventional group; absolute difference, -4 [95% CI, -54 to 46]; P = .66]. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among extubated patients at low risk for reintubation, the use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen compared with conventional oxygen therapy reduced the risk of reintubation within 72 hours. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191489.

Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hernández G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, et al. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2016 Nov 15;316(19):2047-2048] [published correction appears in JAMA. 2017 Feb 28;317(8):858]. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1565-1574. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14194

Link to article

Importance High-flow conditioned oxygen therapy delivered through nasal cannulae and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) may reduce the need for reintubation. Among the advantages of high-flow oxygen therapy are comfort, availability, lower costs, and additional physiopathological mechanisms. Objective To test if high-flow conditioned oxygen therapy is noninferior to NIV for preventing postextubation respiratory failure and reintubation in patients at high risk of reintubation. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 3 intensive care units in Spain (September 2012-October 2014) including critically ill patients ready for planned extubation with at least 1 of the following high-risk factors for reintubation: older than 65 years; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score higher than 12 points on extubation day; body mass index higher than 30; inadequate secretions management; difficult or prolonged weaning; more than 1 comorbidity; heart failure as primary indication for mechanical ventilation; moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; airway patency problems; or prolonged mechanical ventilation. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo either high-flow conditioned oxygen therapy or NIV for 24 hours after extubation. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure within 72 hours. Noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included respiratory infection, sepsis, and multiple organ failure, length of stay and mortality; adverse events; and time to reintubation. Results Of 604 patients (mean age, 65 [SD, 16] years; 388 [64%] men), 314 received NIV and 290 high-flow oxygen. Sixty-six patients (22.8%) in the high-flow group vs 60 (19.1%) in the NIV group were reintubation (absolute difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -9.1% to ∞); 78 patients (26.9%) in the high-flow group vs 125 (39.8%) in the NIV group experienced postextubation respiratory failure (risk difference, 12.9%; 95% CI, 6.6% to ∞) [corrected]. Median time to reintubation did not significantly differ: 26.5 hours (IQR, 14-39 hours) in the high-flow group vs 21.5 hours (IQR, 10-47 hours) in the NIV group (absolute difference, -5 hours; 95% CI, -34 to 24 hours). Median postrandomization ICU length of stay was lower in the high-flow group, 3 days (IQR, 2-7) vs 4 days (IQR, 2-9; P=.048). Other secondary outcomes were similar in the 2 groups. Adverse effects requiring withdrawal of the therapy were observed in none of patients in the high-flow group vs 42.9% patients in the NIV group (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Among high-risk adults who have undergone extubation, high-flow conditioned oxygen therapy was not inferior to NIV for preventing reintubation and postextubation respiratory failure. High-flow conditioned oxygen therapy may offer advantages for these patients. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191489.

High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Maggiore SM, Jaber S, Grieco DL, et al. High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;206(12):1452-1462. doi:10.1164/rccm.202201-0065OC

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35849787/

Rationale: When compared with VenturiMask after extubation, high-flow nasal oxygen provides physiological advantages. Objectives: To establish whether high-flow oxygen prevents endotracheal reintubation in hypoxemic patients after extubation, compared with VenturiMask. Methods: In this multicenter randomized trial, 494 patients exhibiting PaO2:FiO2 ratio ⩽ 300 mm Hg after extubation were randomly assigned to receive high-flow or VenturiMask oxygen, with the possibility to apply rescue noninvasive ventilation before reintubation. High-flow use in the VenturiMask group was not permitted. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the rate of reintubation within 72 hours according to predefined criteria, which were validated a posteriori by an independent adjudication committee. Main secondary outcomes included reintubation rate at 28 days and the need for rescue noninvasive ventilation according to predefined criteria. After intubation criteria validation (n = 492 patients), 32 patients (13%) in the high-flow group and 27 patients (11%) in the VenturiMask group required reintubation at 72 hours (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-2.26]; P = 0.49). At 28 days, the rate of reintubation was 21% in the high-flow group and 23% in the VenturiMask group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.60-1.31]; P = 0.55). The need for rescue noninvasive ventilation was significantly lower in the high-flow group than in the VenturiMask group: at 72 hours, 8% versus 17% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.71]; P = 0.002) and at 28 days, 12% versus 21% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32-0.83]; P = 0.007). Conclusions: Reintubation rate did not significantly differ between patients treated with VenturiMask or high-flow oxygen after extubation. High-flow oxygen yielded less frequent use of rescue noninvasive ventilation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02107183).

Benefit with preventive noninvasive ventilation in subgroups of patients at high-risk for reintubation: a post hoc analysis.

Hernández G, Vaquero C, Ortiz R, et al. Benefit with preventive noninvasive ventilation in subgroups of patients at high-risk for reintubation: a post hoc analysis. J Intensive Care. 2022;10(1):43. Published 2022 Sep 11. doi:10.1186/s40560-022-00635-2

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36089625/

BACKGROUND High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was shown to be non-inferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a general population of high-risk patients. However, some subgroups of high-risk patients might benefit more from NIV. We aimed to determine whether the presence of many risk factors or overweight (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2) patients could have different response to any preventive therapy, NIV or HFNC in terms of reduced reintubation rate. METHODS Not pre-specified post hoc analysis of a multicentre, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial comparing NFNC and NIV to prevent reintubation in patients at risk for reintubation. The original study included patients with at least 1 risk factor for reintubation. RESULTS Among 604 included in the original study, 148 had a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2. When adjusting for potential covariates, patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (208 patients) presented a higher risk for reintubation (OR 3.4 [95%CI 2.16-5.35]). Patients with ≥ 4 risk factors presented lower reintubation rates when treated with preventive NIV (23.9% vs 45.7%; P = 0.001). The multivariate analysis of overweight patients, adjusted for covariates, did not present a higher risk for reintubation (OR 1.37 [95%CI 0.82-2.29]). However, those overweight patients presented an increased risk for reintubation when treated with preventive HFNC (OR 2.47 [95%CI 1.18-5.15]). CONCLUSIONS Patients with ≥ 4 risk factors for reintubation may benefit more from preventive NIV. Based on this result, HFNC may not be the optimal preventive therapy in overweight patients. Specific trials are needed to confirm these results.

Effect of postextubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial.

Hernández G, Paredes I, Moran F, et al. Effect of postextubation noninvasive ventilation with active humidification vs high-flow nasal cannula on reintubation in patients at very high risk for extubation failure: a randomized trial [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2023 Mar;49(3):385]. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(12):1751-1759. doi:10.1007/s00134-022-06919-3

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36400984/

PURPOSE High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy was noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for preventing reintubation in a heterogeneous population at high-risk for extubation failure. However, outcomes might differ in certain subgroups of patients. Thus, we aimed to determine whether NIV with active humidification is superior to HFNC in preventing reintubation in patients with ≥ 4 risk factors (very high risk for extubation failure). METHODS Randomized controlled trial in two intensive care units in Spain (June 2020‒June 2021). Patients ready for planned extubation with ≥ 4 of the following risk factors for reintubation were included: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 on extubation day, body mass index > 30, inadequate secretions management, difficult or prolonged weaning, ≥ 2 comorbidities, acute heart failure indicating mechanical ventilation, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airway patency problems, prolonged mechanical ventilation, or hypercapnia on finishing the spontaneous breathing trial. Patients were randomized to undergo NIV with active humidification or HFNC for 48 h after extubation. The primary outcome was reintubation rate within 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes included postextubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, sepsis, multiorgan failure, length of stay, mortality, adverse events, and time to reintubation. RESULTS Of 182 patients (mean age, 60 [standard deviation (SD), 15] years; 117 [64%] men), 92 received NIV and 90 HFNC. Reintubation was required in 21 (23.3%) patients receiving NIV vs 35 (38.8%) of those receiving HFNC (difference -15.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -28.3 to -1%). Hospital length of stay was lower in those patients treated with NIV (20 [12‒36.7] days vs 26.5 [15‒45] days, difference 6.5 [95%CI 0.5-21.1]). No additional differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS Among adult critically ill patients at very high-risk for extubation failure, NIV with active humidification was superior to HFNC for preventing reintubation.

The complete guide to high flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC)

Everything healthcare professionals need to know to get started with high flow nasal cannula therapy: the flow rate, FiO2 settings, when to use HFNC, selecting the interface, and much more.

A comprehensive guide to noninvasive ventilation (NIV)

Learn everything you need to know in our guide to NIV ventilation: from the medical abbreviation, to what noninvasive ventilation is, when to use it, selecting the interface and settings, and more.

Prácticas de manejo y resultados actuales de la retirada de la ventilación mecánica

Una publicación reciente documenta los resultados del estudio internacional de mayor envergadura hasta la fecha en el que se ha investigado el manejo y los resultados de la retirada en pacientes de la UCI.