The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy of Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula compared with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in the prevention of extubation failure in patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation.
There have been many clinical trials comparing the role of Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula or Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the prevention of extubation failure. These review all have similar results summarized here: Compared with Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula provides better patient comfort, fewer oxygen desaturation episodes, lower likelihood of interface displacement, and, lower reintubation rate than Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. However, most of these clinical trials focused on participants experiencing acute respiratory failure. Investigators of this study want to find something difference between oh these two groups.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
80
Participants using of invasive ventilator more than 14 days, maybe considered transferred to the Respiratory Care Center(RCC), participants enrolled to this study and also written informed consent from participants or their family; After extubation, the difficult weaning patients were allocated to two treatment groups, and randomly assigned to Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula or Noninvasive Ventilation devices.
Re-intubation rate
Any placement of an endotracheal tube for any indication within 72 hours of extubation, censored at the first of hospital discharge or 72 hours after extubation.
Time frame: within 72 hours of extubation
Mortality rate
Mortality rate, or death rate is a measure of the number of deaths
Time frame: up to 3 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.