Helmet NIV vs. CPAP vs. High-flow Nasal Oxygen in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Multicenter, open label, three-arm randomized trial to assess the effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. helmet continuous positive airway pressure vs. high-flow nasal oxygen on the rate of endotracheal intubation of patients with acute moderate-to-severe hypoxemic respiratory failure

The optimal initial management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is uncertain. Helmet noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen appear as the most promising techniques in this setting. Recently, the first head-to-head randomized trial compared first-line continuous treatment with helmet pressure support ventilation with specific settings (PEEP=12 cmH2O pressure and pressure support=10-12 cmH2O) vs. high-flow nasal oxygen alone in patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Results showed no significant inter-group difference in the days free of respiratory support at 28 days, but lower intubation rate and increased 28-day invasive ventilation-free days in the helmet group. Use of helmet noninvasive ventilation is less frequent than use of helmet continuous positive airway pressure, which is simpler to use. The investigators designed an open-label, multicentre randomized trial to assess the effect of helmet pressure support ventilation and continuous airway pressure as compared to high-flow nasal oxygen on the intubation rate of patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit.