High Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Non Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Reducing The Rate of Reintubation

Assiut University

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Respiratory Failure; Re-intubation Rate

Treatments: Device: high flow nasal cannula; Device: non invasive positive pressure ventilation

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT06029699

HFNC vs NIPPV

Details and patient eligibility

About

This is study aim to compare between high flow nasal canula (HFNC) and non invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in reducing the rate of reintubation in mechanically ventilated patient with successful weaning

Full description

• High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy comprises an air/oxygen blender, an active humidifier, a single heated circuit, and a nasal cannula. It delivers adequately heated and humidified medical gas at up to 60 L/min of flow and is considered to have a number of physiological effects: reduction of anatomical dead space, positive end expiratory pressure ( PEEP ) effect, constant fraction of inspired oxygen, and good humidification
• Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation is a safe and effective means of improving gas exchange in patients with many types of acute respiratory failure . for example, adding noninvasive ventilation to standard therapy decreased the need for endotracheal intubation...For patients assigned to noninvasive ventilation, the ventilator was connected with conventional tubing to a clear, full-face mask with an inflatable soft-cushion seal and a disposable foam spacer to reduce dead space .After the mask had been secured, pressure support was increased to achieve an exhaled tidal volume of 8 to 10 ml per kilogram, a respiratory rate of fewer than 25 breaths per minute, the disappearance of accessory muscle activity (as evaluated by palpation of the sternocleidomastoid muscle), and patient comfort
• The effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial. The investigators aimed to further determine the effectiveness of HFNC in reducing the rate of endotracheal intubation in adult patients with ARF by comparison to noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)

Enrollment: 50 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 100 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• All patient suffer from acute respiratory failure and intubated for mechanical ventilation and then extubated for weaning
• Age >18 years old

Exclusion criteria

• In patients less than 18 years old
• Any contradiction in using HFNC as trauma or surgery or obstruction of nasopharynx
• Any contradiction in using NIPPV as facial trauma ..surgery ..deformity..or upper airway obstruction or upper gastrointestinal bleeding or high risk of aspiration

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

50 participants in 2 patient groups

high flow nasal cannula group

Active Comparator group

Description:

patients put on high flow nasal cannula after extubation

Treatment:

Device: high flow nasal cannula

non invasive positive pressure ventilation group

Active Comparator group

Description:

patients put on non invasive positive pressure ventilation group after extubation

Treatment:

Device: non invasive positive pressure ventilation