Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used noninvasive form of respiratory support in acute settings; however, evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Materials and methodology: The European Respiratory Society task force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The task force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to summarise evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF. Results: The task force developed eight conditional recommendations, suggesting the use of 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxaemic ARF; 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxaemic ARF; 3) HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV; 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications; 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications; 6) HFNC over COT in nonsurgical patients at low risk of extubation failure; 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV; and 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with COPD and hypercapnic ARF. Conclusions: HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of noninvasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

In intensive care units (ICUs), approximately 10% to 15% of patients ready to be separated from a ventilator experience extubation failure leading to reintubation.¹ In patients considered at high risk, these rates can even exceed 20%.^1,2 Because reintubation is associated with particularly high mortality,^3,4 a strategy of oxygenation aimed at avoiding reintubation deserves consideration. Although noninvasive ventilation may prevent postextubation respiratory failure in patients at high risk,^5-9 only 2 small-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown decreased reintubation rates compared with standard oxygen.^5,6 The most recent international clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of noninvasive ventilation to prevent postextubation respiratory failure in patients at high risk of extubation failure.¹⁰ However, up until now, no large-scale RCT has demonstrated a significant reduction of reintubation rates with noninvasive ventilation compared with standard oxygen. Thereby, most patients are treated with standard oxygen in clinical practice and only 10% of them receive noninvasive ventilation after extubation in the ICU.^2,11

Introduction: We assessed rates and predictive factors of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) failure in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for non-hypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: This is an observational cohort study using data prospectively collected over a three-year period in a medical ICU of a university hospital. Results: Among 113 patients receiving NIV for AHRF, 82 had acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and 31 had non-ARDS. Intubation rates significantly differed between ARDS and non-ARDS patients (61% versus 35%, P = 0.015) and according to clinical severity of ARDS: 31% in mild, 62% in moderate, and 84% in severe ARDS (P = 0.0016). In-ICU mortality rates were 13% in non-ARDS, and, respectively, 19%, 32% and 32% in mild, moderate and severe ARDS (P = 0.22). Among patients with moderate ARDS, NIV failure was lower among those having a PaO₂/FiO₂ >150 mmHg (45% vs. 74%, p = 0.04). NIV failure was associated with active cancer, shock, moderate/severe ARDS, lower Glasgow coma score and lower positive end-expiratory pressure level at NIV initiation. Among intubated patients, ICU mortality rate was 46% overall and did not differ according to the time to intubation. Conclusions: With intubation rates below 35% in non-ARDS and mild ARDS, NIV stands as the first-line approach; NIV may be attempted in ARDS patients with a PaO₂/FiO₂ > 150. By contrast, 84% of severe ARDS required intubation and NIV did not appear beneficial in this subset of patients. However, the time to intubation had no influence on mortality.

Spontaneous-breathing trials can be performed with the use of either pressure-support ventilation (PSV) or a T-piece. Whether PSV trials may result in a shorter time to tracheal extubation than T-piece trials, without resulting in a higher risk of reintubation, among patients who have a high risk of extubation failure is unknown.

Intubation and extubation of ventilated patients are not risk-free procedures in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Intubation in the ICU is frequently required in emergency situations for patients with an unstable cardiovascular or respiratory system. Under these circumstances, it is a high-risk procedure with life-threatening complications (20–50%). Moreover, technical problems can also give rise to complications and several new techniques, such as videolaryngoscopy, have been developed recently. Another risk period is extubation, which fails in approximately 10% of cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. A better understanding of the cause of failure is essential to improve success procedure. In constructing these guidelines, the SFAR/SRLF experts have made use of new data on intubation and extubation in the ICU from the last decade to update existing procedures, incorporate more recent advances and propose algorithms.

Acute respiratory failure is the main cause of admission to intensive care unit in immunocompromised patients. In this subset of patients, the beneficial effects of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as compared to standard oxygen remain debated. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is an alternative to standard oxygen or NIV, and its use in hypoxemic patients has been growing. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes of immunocompromised patients treated using HFNC alone or NIV as a first-line therapy for acute respiratory failure in an observational cohort study over an 8-year period. Patients with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure, those treated with standard oxygen alone or needing immediate intubation, and those with a do-not-intubate order were excluded. Among the 115 patients analyzed, 60 (52 %) were treated with HFNC alone and 55 (48 %) with NIV as first-line therapy with 30 patients (55 %) receiving HFNC and 25 patients (45 %) standard oxygen between NIV sessions. The rates of intubation and 28-day mortality were higher in patients treated with NIV than with HFNC (55 vs. 35 %, p = 0.04, and 40 vs. 20 %, p = 0.02 log-rank test, respectively). Using propensity score-matched analysis, NIV was associated with mortality. Using multivariate analysis, NIV was independently associated with intubation and mortality. Based on this observational cohort study including immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure, intubation and mortality rates could be lower in patients treated with HFNC alone than with NIV. The use of NIV remained independently associated with poor outcomes.