Nasal highflow eliminates CO2 from lower airways

Nasal high-flow compared to non-invasive ventilation in treatment of acute acidotic hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-protocol for a randomized controlled noninferiority trial (ELVIS)

Background

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) have a major negative impact on health status, rates of hospitalization, readmission, disease progression and mortality. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is the standard therapy for hypercapnic acidotic respiratory failure in AECOPD. Despite its beneficial effects, NIV is often poorly tolerated (11–34 % failure rate). An increasing number of studies have documented a beneficial effect of nasal high-flow (NHF) in acute hypercapnia. We designed a prospective, randomized, multi-centre, open label, non-inferiority trial to compare treatment failure in nasal NHF vs NIV in patients with acidotic hypercapnic AECOPD.

Methods

The study will be conducted in about 35 sites in Germany. Patients with hypercapnic AECOPD with respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.35) will be randomized 1:1 to NIV or NHF. The primary outcome is the combined endpoint of intubation, treatment failure or death at 72 h. The switch from one to the other device marks a device failure but acts as a rescue treatment in absence of intubation criteria. A sample size of 720 was calculated to have 80% power for showing that NHF is non-inferior to NIV with a margin of 8 percentage points. Linear regression will be used for the confirmatory analysis.

Discussion

If NHF is shown to be non-inferior to NIV in acidotic hypercapnic AECOPD, it could become an important alternative treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04881409, Registered on May 11, 2021

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05978-z.

Exhalation Spreading During Nasal High-Flow Therapy at Different Flow Rates

OBJECTIVES

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is transmitted through aerosols and droplets. Nasal high-flow therapy could possibly increase the spreading of exhalates from patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether nasal high-flow therapy affects the range of the expiratory plume compared with spontaneous breathing.

DESIGN

Interventional experiment on single breaths of a healthy volunteer.

SETTING

Research laboratory at the Bauhaus-University Weimar.

SUBJECTS

A male subject.

INTERVENTIONS

Videos and images from a schlieren optical system were analyzed during spontaneous breathing and different nasal high-flow rates.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The maximal exhalation spread was 0.99, 2.18, 2.92, and 4.1 m during spontaneous breathing, nasal high-flow of 20 L/min, nasal high-flow of 40 L/min, and nasal high-flow of 60 L/min, respectively. Spreading of the expiratory plume in the sagittal plane can completely be blocked with a surgical mask.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal high-flow therapy increases the range of the expiratory air up to more than 4 meters. The risk to pick up infectious particles could be increased within this range. Attachment of a surgical mask over the nasal high-flow cannula blocks the expiratory airstream.

The Mechanisms of Benefit of High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Stable COPD

High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) is a unique system that delivers humidified, heated oxygen-enriched air via nasal cannula at high flow rates. It is a promising therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Several studies have examined the physiologic effects of this therapy in the patient population and have revealed that it improves mucociliary clearance, reduces nasopharyngeal dead space, and subsequently increases CO₂ washout. It also improves alveolar recruitment and gas exchange. These mechanisms may explain the promising results observed in recently published studies that examined the role of HFNT in stable COPD patients.

Position Paper for the State-of-the-Art Application of Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19

Against the background of the pandemic caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the German Respiratory Society has appointed experts to develop therapy strategies for COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Here we present key position statements including observations about the pathophysiology of (ARF). In terms of the pathophysiology of pulmonary infection with SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 can be divided into 3 phases. Pulmonary damage in advanced COVID-19 often differs from the known changes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Two types (type L and type H) are differentiated, corresponding to early- and late-stage lung damage. This differentiation should be taken into consideration in the respiratory support of ARF. The assessment of the extent of ARF should be based on arterial or capillary blood gas analysis under room air conditions, and it needs to include the calculation of oxygen supply (measured from the variables of oxygen saturation, hemoglobin level, the corrected values of Hüfner's factor, and cardiac output). Aerosols can cause transmission of infectious, virus-laden particles. Open systems or vented systems can increase the release of respirable particles. Procedures in which the invasive ventilation system must be opened and endotracheal intubation carried out are associated with an increased risk of infection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) should have top priority because fear of contagion should not be a primary reason for intubation. Based on the current knowledge, inhalation therapy, nasal high-flow therapy (NHF), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be performed without an increased risk of infection to staff if PPE is provided. A significant proportion of patients with ARF present with relevant hypoxemia, which often cannot be fully corrected, even with a high inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) under NHF. In this situation, the oxygen therapy can be escalated to CPAP or NIV when the criteria for endotracheal intubation are not met. In ARF, NIV should be carried out in an intensive care unit or a comparable setting by experienced staff. Under CPAP/NIV, a patient can deteriorate rapidly. For this reason, continuous monitoring and readiness for intubation are to be ensured at all times. If the ARF progresses under CPAP/NIV, intubation should be implemented without delay in patients who do not have a "do not intubate" order.

[Position Paper for the State of the Art Application of Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19 - German Respiratory Society]

Against the background of the pandemic caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2, the German Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine (DGP e.V.), in cooperation with other associations, has designated a team of experts in order to answer the currently pressing questions about therapy strategies in dealing with COVID-19 patients suffering from acute respiratory insufficiency (ARI).The position paper is based on the current knowledge that is evolving daily. Many of the published and cited studies require further review, also because many of them did not undergo standard review processes.Therefore, this position paper is also subject to a continuous review process and will be further developed in cooperation with the other professional societies.This position paper is structured into the following five topics:1. Pathophysiology of acute respiratory insufficiency in patients without immunity infected with SARS-CoV-22. Temporal course and prognosis of acute respiratory insufficiency during the course of the disease3. Oxygen insufflation, high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation and invasive ventilation with special consideration of infectious aerosol formation4. Non-invasive ventilation in ARI5. Supply continuum for the treatment of ARIKey points have been highlighted as core statements and significant observations. Regarding the pathophysiological aspects of acute respiratory insufficiency (ARI), the pulmonary infection with SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 runs through three phases: early infection, pulmonary manifestation and severe hyperinflammatory phase.There are differences between advanced COVID-19-induced lung damage and those changes seen in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndromes (ARDS) as defined by the Berlin criteria. In a pathophysiologically plausible - but currently not yet histopathologically substantiated - model, two types (L-type and H-type) are distinguished, which correspond to an early and late phase. This distinction can be taken into consideration in the differential instrumentation in the therapy of ARI.The assessment of the extent of ARI should be carried out by an arterial or capillary blood gas analysis under room air conditions and must include the calculation of the oxygen supply (measured from the variables of oxygen saturation, the Hb value, the corrected values of the Hüfner number and the cardiac output). In principle, aerosols can cause transmission of infectious viral particles. Open systems or leakage systems (so-called vented masks) can prevent the release of respirable particles. Procedures in which the invasive ventilation system must be opened, and endotracheal intubation must be carried out are associated with an increased risk of infection.The protection of personnel with personal protective equipment should have very high priority because fear of contagion must not be a primary reason for intubation. If the specifications for protective equipment (eye protection, FFP2 or FFP-3 mask, gown) are adhered to, inhalation therapy, nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy, CPAP therapy or NIV can be carried out according to the current state of knowledge without increased risk of infection to the staff. A significant proportion of patients with respiratory failure presents with relevant hypoxemia, often also caused by a high inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2) including NHF, and this hypoxemia cannot be not completely corrected. In this situation, CPAP/NIV therapy can be administered under use of a mouth and nose mask or a respiratory helmet as therapy escalation, as long as the criteria for endotracheal intubation are not fulfilled.In acute hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, NIV should be performed in an intensive care unit or in a comparable unit by personnel with appropriate expertise. Under CPAP/NIV, a patient can deteriorate rapidly. For this reason, continuous monitoring with readiness to carry out intubation must be ensured at all times. If CPAP/NIV leads to further progression of ARI, intubation and subsequent invasive ventilation should be carried out without delay if no DNI order is in place.In the case of patients in whom invasive ventilation, after exhausting all guideline-based measures, is not sufficient, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation procedure (ECMO) should be considered to ensure sufficient oxygen supply and to remove CO2.

Nasal high-flow versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with chronic hypercapnic COPD

Background

Despite the encouraging results of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients, it is also evident that some patients do not tolerate NIV or do not benefit from it. We conducted a study in which COPD patients with stable, chronic hypercapnia were treated with NIV and nasal high-flow (NHF) to compare effectiveness.

Methods

In a multi-centered, randomized, controlled, cross-over design, patients received 6 weeks of NHF ventilation followed by 6 weeks of NIV ventilation or vice-versa (TIBICO) between 2011 and 2016. COPD patients with stable daytime hypercapnia (pCO₂≥50 mmHg) were recruited from 13 German centers. The primary endpoint was pCO₂ changes from baseline blood gas, lung function, quality of life (QoL), the 6 min walking test, and duration of device use were secondary endpoints.

Results

A total of 102 patients (mean±SD) age 65.3±9.3 years, 61% females, body mass index 23.1±4.8 kg/m², 90% GOLD D, pCO₂ 56.5±5.4 mmHg were randomized. PCO₂ levels decreased by 4.7% (n=94; full analysis set; 95% CI 1.8-7.5, P=0.002) using NHF and 7.1% (95% CI 4.1-10.1, P<0.001) from baseline using NIV (indistinguishable to intention-to-treat analysis). The difference of pCO₂ changes between the two devices was -1.4 mmHg (95% CI -3.1-0.4, P=0.12). Both devices had positive impact on blood gases and respiratory scores (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Severe Respiratory Insufficiency Questionnaire).

Conclusions

NHF may constitute an alternative to NIV in COPD patients with stable chronic hypercapnia, eg, those not tolerating or rejecting NIV with respect to pCO₂ reduction and improvement in QoL.

Effectiveness of nasal highflow in hypercapnic COPD patients is flow and leakage dependent

Background

Nasal Highflow (NHF) delivers a humidified and heated airflow via nasal prongs. Current data provide evidence for efficacy of NHF in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Preliminary data suggest that NHF may decrease hypercapnia in hypercapnic respiratory failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mechanism of NHF mediated PCO₂ reduction in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

In 36 hypercapnic COPD patients (PCO₂ > 45 mmHg), hypercapnia was evaluated by capillary gas sampling 1 h after NHF breathing under four conditions A to D with different flow rates and different degrees of leakage (A = 20 L/min, low leakage, two prongs, both inside; B = 40 L/min, low leakage, two prongs, both inside; C = 40 L/min, high leakage, two prongs, one outside and open; D = 40 L/min, high leakage, two prongs, one outside and closed). Under identical conditions, mean airway pressure was measured in the hypopharynx of 10 COPD patients.

Results

Hypercapnia significantly decreased in all patients. In patients with capillary PCO₂ > 55 mmHg (n = 26), PCO₂ additionally decreased significantly by increased leakage and/or flow rate in comparison to lower leakage/ flow rate conditions (A = 94.2 ± 8.2%; B = 93.5 ± 4.4%; C = 90.5 ± 7.2%; D = 86.8 ± 3.8%). The highest mean airway pressure was observed in patients breathing under condition B (2.3 ± 1.6 mbar; p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates effective PCO₂ reduction with NHF therapy in stable hypercapnic COPD patients. This effect does not correlate with an increase in mean airway pressure but with increased leakage and airflow, indicating airway wash out and reduction of functional dead space as important mechanisms of NHF therapy. These results may be useful when considering NHF treatment in hypercapnic COPD patients.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials: NCT02504814; First posted July 22, 2015.

Oral Versus Nasal High-Flow Bronchodilator Inhalation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

Nasal high flow (NHF) alters breathing patterns, stabilizes fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) during respiratory distress, helps to keep up hemostasis in the airways, and washes out the upper airways. Particularly the support of inspiratory flow and decrease in functional dead space are interesting mechanisms of action with regard to aerosol delivery. Several laboratory investigations have studied aerosol delivery via the nasal route by using NHF, whereas clinical benefits are poorly evaluated.

METHODS

Thirty patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Gold D were recruited. In a randomized order, they inhaled a salbutamol 2.5 mg/ipratropium bromide 500 μg solution oral or NHF adapted on the second study day. A jet nebulizer was used as aerosol delivery device. The chosen flow rate was 35 L/min.

RESULTS

Four patients refused to repeat the procedure, for example, for inconvenience or fear of delayed discharge, and were not included in the intention-to-treat analysis. All remaining patients tolerated both inhalation systems well. Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), airway resistance (Rtot), and residual volume (RV) were significantly altered after bronchodilator inhalation with each of the both devices. The two different ways of combined bronchodilator inhalation resulted in very comparable changes in FVC, FEV1, relative 1 second-capacity (FEV1%FVC), Rtot, total lung capacity (TLC), RV, and residual volume expressed as percent of TLC (RV%TLC). However, in between devices, no difference was observed on comparing the postinhalational measurements of FVC, FEV1, Rtot, and RV.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude from this proof-of-principle kind of study that inhalation of combined bronchodilators adapted to an NHF device is similarly effective to inhalation with a standard oral aerosol nebulizer. (Clinical Trails NCT02885103).