High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy versus Non-Invasive Ventilation in AIDS Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains the most common diagnosis for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients. Methods: We conducted a single-center, prospective, open-labeled, randomized controlled trial at the ICU, Beijing Ditan Hospital, China. AIDS patients with ARF were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) immediately after randomization. The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation on day 28. Results: 120 AIDS patients were enrolled and 56 patients in the HFNC group and 57 patients in the NIV group after secondary exclusion. Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) was the main etiology for ARF (94.7%). The intubation rates on day 28 were similar to HFNC and NIV (28.6% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.457). Kaplan–Meier curves showed no statistical difference in cumulative intubation rates between the two groups (log-rank test 0.401, p = 0.527). The number of airway care interventions in the HFNC group was fewer than in the NIV group (6 (5–7) vs. 8 (6–9), p < 0.001). The rate of intolerance in the HFNC group was lower than in the NIV group (1.8% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.032). The VAS scores of device discomfort in the HFNC group were lower than that in the NIV group at 2 h (4 (4–5) vs. 5 (4–7), p = 0.042) and at 24 h (4 (3–4) vs. 4 (3–6), p = 0.036). The respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group at 24 h (25 ± 4/min vs. 27 ± 5/min, p = 0.041). Conclusions: Among AIDS patients with ARF, there was no statistical significance of the intubation rate between HFNC and NIV. HFNC had better tolerance and device comfort, fewer airway care interventions, and a lower respiratory rate than NIV. Clinical Trial Number: Chictr.org (ChiCTR1900022241).