A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) Versus High-Velocity Nasal Cannula (HVNC) in the Management of Acute Post-Operative Respiratory Failure
A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation (NIV) Versus High-Velocity Nasal Cannula (HVNC) in the Management of Acute Post-Operative Respiratory Failure
Postoperative respiratory failure (PORF) remains a critical driver of morbidity, mortality, and incremental care costs in surgical populations. Traditional escalation often involves invasive mechanical ventilation, which is associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and increased resource burden.
Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) have both been shown to improve oxygen levels effectively and reduce the need for reintubation in various patient groups. However, head-to-head data in patients with obstructive or restrictive pulmonary function (PORF) are scarce.
This protocol employs a robust and scalable design to generate high-quality evidence, empower perioperative stakeholders, and optimize patient-centric respiratory strategies. We hypothesize that NIV will reduce 72-hour reintubation rates compared to HFNC, translating into shorter ICU stays and lower costs.
Methodology & Operational Workflow
ABGs and fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) at 1 hour, 6 hours, and 24 hours. Comfort scores every six hours. Record interface-related adverse events.
- Escalation Criteria The patient exhibits persistent partial arterial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) levels of less than 100, even at maximal settings.
Hemodynamic instability occurs due to the use of new-onset vasopressors. Deterioration leading to invasive ventilation → classified as "reintubation."
Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
shaddad_ahmad@aun.edu.eg+201111171930
Asyut, Assuit 71515, Egypt
shaddad_ahmad@yahoo.com+201111171930
shaddad_ahmad@yahoo.com