A Randomised Controlled Trial of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Versus Standard Oxygen Therapy in Critically Ill Immunocompromised Patients (HIGH)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02739451|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : April 15, 2016
Last Update Posted : July 24, 2018
Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is the leading reason for ICU admission in immunocompromised patients. Usual oxygen therapy involves administering low-to-medium oxygen flows through a nasal cannula or mask [with or without a bag and with or without the Venturi system] to achieve SpO2≥95%.
Oxygen therapy may be combined with non-invasive ventilation [NIV] providing both end-expiratory positive pressure and pressure support. However, in a recent trial by our group, non-invasive ventialtion [NIV] was not superior over oxygen without NIV.
High-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO] therapy is a focus of growing attention as an alternative to standard oxygen therapy. By providing warmed and humidified gas, HFNO allows the delivery of higher flow rates [of up to 60 L/min] via nasal cannula devices, with Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) values of nearly 100%. Physiological benefits of HFNO consist of higher and constant FiO2 values, decreased work of breathing, nasopharyngeal washout leading to improved breathing-effort efficiency, and higher positive airway pressures associated with better lung recruitment.
Clinical consequences of these physiological benefits include alleviation of dyspnoea and discomfort, decreases in tachypnoea and signs of respiratory distress, a diminished need for intubation in patients with severe hypoxemia, and decreased mortality in unselected patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure However, although preliminary data establish the feasibility and safety of this technique, HFNO has never been properly evaluated in immunocompromised patients.
Thus, this project aims at demonstrating that HFNO is superior to low/medium-flow (standard) oxygen, minimising day-28 mortality
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Acute Respiratory Failure||Procedure: standard oxygen Procedure: HFNO||Not Applicable|
After discussion at the investigator meeting and based on comments from the Data and Safety Monitoring Board on May 12, 2016, the DSMB has highlighted the need of the interim analysis (already planned) as benefits from high flow oxygen may be observed after 400 inclusions.
Update on June 16, 2017:
The number of patients enrolled is 488 and the inclusion rate is increasing steadily.
The interim analysis has been performed as scheduled and the DSMB decided that nothing should be changed.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||776 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||A Randomised Controlled Trial of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Versus Standard Oxygen Therapy in Critically Ill Immunocompromised Patients|
|Study Start Date :||May 2016|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||December 31, 2017|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||December 31, 2017|
Active Comparator: standard oxygen group
Oxygen therapy will be delivered using any device or combination of devices that are part of usual care: nasal oxygen, and mask with or without a reservoir bag and with or without the Venturi system
Procedure: standard oxygen
Devices used to treat spontaneously ventilating patients in the ICU who require supplemental oxygen. They deliver either
Experimental: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) group
Device that delivers humidified and warmed high-flow oxygen at flows greater than 15 L/min.
HFNO will be initiated at a flow rate of 50 L/min and 100% FiO2. If the target SpO2 is not reached, the flow rate will be increased to 60 L/min. Then, FiO2 will be tapered to target an SpO2≥95. The minimal flow rate will be 45 L/min
The intervention is the use of a device that allows to deliver high flow humidified and warmed oxygen. The device used is the Optiflow™ (Fisher&Paykel, Courtaboeuf, France).
- All-cause day-28 mortality [ Time Frame: 28 days ]
- Intubation or reintubation rate [ Time Frame: days 3 and 28 ]proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation
- patient comfort [ Time Frame: 28 days ]Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score
- Intensity of dyspnoea [ Time Frame: days 1-3 ]Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score
- Perceived Exertion [ Time Frame: days 1-3 ]Borg scale
- Respiratory rate [ Time Frame: days 1-3 ]
- Oxygenation [ Time Frame: days 1-3 ]based on continuous saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) monitoring, lowest SpO2 from D1 to D3 and PaO2/FiO2 on D1, D2, and D3
- ICU length of stay [ Time Frame: 28 days ]
- Incidence of ICU-acquired infections [ Time Frame: 28 days ]
- Time to clear pulmonary infiltrates [ Time Frame: 28 days ]Murray score
- Oxygen-free and ventilation-free survivals [ Time Frame: day 28 ]
- Re-intubation rate [ Time Frame: day 28 ]
- Lowest median SpO2 during intubation [ Time Frame: days 1-3 ]for patients who were intubated during the study period
- Repartition of acute mild/moderate/severe respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) stages after intubation or reintubation as defined by the Berlin definition [ Time Frame: day 28 ]
- Hypoxemic cardiac arrests [ Time Frame: day 28 ]After discussion at the investigator meeting and based on comments from the Data and Safety Monitoring Board on May 12, 2016, all hypoxemic cardiac arrests will be considered as suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02739451
|Paris, France, 75010|
|Principal Investigator:||Elie Azoulay, MDPhD||APHP|