High flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in hospitalised patients with respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) is used in diverse hospital settings to treat patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence regarding any benefits HFNO therapy has compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients with ARF.

METHODS

Three databases (Embase, Medline and CENTRAL) were searched on 22 March 2023 for studies evaluating HFNO compared with COT for the treatment of ARF, with the primary outcome being hospital mortality and secondary outcomes including (but not limited to) escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (randomised controlled trials (RCTs)), ROBINS-I (non-randomised trials) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). RCTs and observational studies were pooled together for primary analyses, and secondary analyses used RCT data only. Treatment effects were pooled using the random effects model.

RESULTS

63 studies (26 RCTs, 13 cross-over and 24 observational studies) were included, with 10 230 participants. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of hospital mortality (risk ratio, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; p=0.29; 17 studies, n=5887) between HFNO and COT for all causes ARF. However, compared with COT, HFNO significantly reduced the overall need for escalation to IMV (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95 p=0.003; 39 studies, n=8932); and overall need for escalation to NIV (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; p=0.04; 16 studies, n=3076). In subgroup analyses, when considering patients by illness types, those with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure who received HFNO compared with COT had a significant reduction in-hospital mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02).

DISCUSSION

HFNO was superior to COT in reducing the need for escalation to both IMV and NIV but had no impact on the primary outcome of hospital mortality. These findings support recommendations that HFNO may be considered as first-line therapy for ARF.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021264837.

Implementing High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy in Medical Wards: A Scoping Review to Understand Hospital Protocols and Procedures

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause for hospital admission. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for patients with ARF, including in medical wards. Clinical guidance is crucial when providing HFNO, and health services use local health guidance documents (LHGDs) to achieve this. It is unknown what hospital LHGDs recommend regarding ward administration of HFNO. This study examined Australian hospitals' LHGDs regarding ward-based HFNO administration to determine content that may affect safe delivery. A scoping review was undertaken on 2 May 2022 and updated on 29 January 2024 to identify public hospitals' LHGDs regarding delivery of HFNO to adults with ARF in medical wards in two Australian states. Data were extracted and analysed regarding HFNO initiation, monitoring, maintenance and weaning, and management of clinical deterioration. Of the twenty-six included LHGDs, five documents referenced Australian Oxygen Guidelines. Twenty LHGDs did not define a threshold level of hypoxaemia where HFNO use was recommended over conventional oxygen therapy. Thirteen did not provide target oxygen saturation ranges whilst utilising HFNO. Recommendations varied regarding maximal levels of inspired oxygen and flow rates in the medical ward. Eight LHGDs did not specify any system to identify and manage deteriorating patients. Five LHGDs did not provide guidance for weaning patients from HFNO. There was substantial variation in the LHGDs regarding HFNO care for adult patients with ARF in Australian hospitals. These findings have implications for the delivery of high-quality, safe clinical care in hospitals.

Assessment of Swallowing Function in Healthy Adults While Using High-Flow Nasal Cannula

OBJECTIVE

Despite widespread use of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for respiratory support, the effect of HFNC on swallowing physiology is poorly understood. Flow rates that permit safe swallowing have not been established. We aim to assess if healthy individuals have diminished swallowing function and safety at high flow rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated measures with planned data collection.

SETTING

Outpatient dysphagia clinic.

METHODS

Swallowing function in a cohort of healthy individuals was assessed using Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES). Participants' safety of swallowing was assessed with different textures under randomized rates of HFNC (0, 30, 40, 50, and 60 LPM). Swallowing trials included quantities of thin liquids, mildly-thick liquids, and purees. Trials were scored using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Pearson chi-square tests were used to test for correlation between PAS result, flow rate, and consistency across each quantity of material.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven subjects were enrolled. Forty-one percent were male with mean age of 34 years (11 standard deviation). Ninety-nine percent (267/270), 97% (n = 263/270), and 99% (399/405) of 1 sip swallows, 3 sip swallows, and 5 mL swallows, respectively, were safe. There was no significant correlation between swallow safety and flow rate using Pearson Chi-Square test across all consistencies and across all quantities of materials (P > 0.05). Of note, out of all subtrials, the thin liquid, 3 sips trial at 60 LPM, had the largest percent of unsafe swallows (14%).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest rate of aspiration is not significantly affected by high flow nasal cannula in healthy individuals.

Switches in non-invasive respiratory support strategies during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Need to monitoring from a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To explore combined non-invasive-respiratory-support (NIRS) patterns, reasons for NIRS switching, and their potential impact on clinical outcomes in acute-hypoxemic-respiratory-failure (AHRF) patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center observational study.

SETTING

Intensive Care Medicine.

PATIENTS

AHRF patients (cardiac origin and respiratory acidosis excluded) underwent combined NIRS therapies such as non-invasive-ventilation (NIV) and High-Flow-Nasal-Cannula (HFNC).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were classified based on the first NIRS switch performed (HFNC-to-NIV or NIV-to-HFNC), and further specific NIRS switching strategies (NIV trial-like vs. Non-NIV trial-like and single vs. multiples switches) were independently evaluated.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Reasons for switching, NIRS failure and mortality rates.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients with AHRF were included, receiving combined NIRS, 58.7% classified in the HFNC-to-NIV group and 41.3% in the NIV-to-HFNC group. Reason for switching from HFNC to NIV was AHRF worsening (100%), while from NIV to HFNC was respiratory improvement (76.9%). NIRS failure rates were higher in the HFNC-to-NIV than in NIV-to-HFNC group (81% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). Among HFNC-to-NIV patients, there was no difference in the failure rate between the NIV trial-like and non-NIV trial-like groups (86% vs. 78%, p = 0.575) but the mortality rate was significantly lower in NIV trial-like group (14% vs. 52%, p = 0.02). Among NIV to HFNC patients, NIV failure was lower in the single switch group compared to the multiple switches group (15% vs. 53%, p = 0.039), with a shorter length of stay (5 [2-8] vs. 12 [8-30] days, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

NIRS combination is used in real life and both switches' strategies, HFNC to NIV and NIV to HFNC, are common in AHRF management. Transitioning from HFNC to NIV is suggested as a therapeutic escalation and in this context performance of a NIV-trial could be beneficial. Conversely, switching from NIV to HFNC is suggested as a de-escalation strategy that is deemed safe if there is no NIRS failure.

Clinical Practice of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in ARDS Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Respiratory Therapists

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an essential non-invasive oxygen therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Despite its wide use, research assessing the knowledge, practice, and barriers to using HFNC among respiratory therapists (RT) is lacking.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among RTs in Saudi Arabia between December 19, 2022, and July 15, 2023. Data were analyzed as means and standard deviation or frequency and percentages. A Chi-square test was used to compare the differences between groups.

Results

A total of 1001 RTs completed the online survey. Two-thirds of the respondents 659 (65.8%) had received training in using HFNC and 785 (78.4%) had used HFNC in clinical settings. The top conditions for HFNC indication were COVID-19 (78%), post-extubation (65%), and do-not-intubate patients (64%). Participants strongly agreed that helping maintain conversation and eating abilities (32.95%) and improving shortness of breath (34.1%) were advantages of HFNC. Surprisingly, 568 (57%) of RT staff did not follow a protocol for HFNC with ARDS patients. When starting HFNC, 40.2% of the participants started with FiO2 of 61% to 80%. Additionally, high percentages of RT staff started with a flow rate between 30 L/minute and 40 L/minute (40.6%) and a temperature of 37°C (57.7%). When weaning ARDS patients, 482 (48.1%) recommended first reducing gas flow by 5-10 L/minute every two to four hours. Moreover, 549 (54.8%) believed that ARDS patients could be disconnected from HFNC if they achieved a flow rate of <20 L/minute and FiO2 of <35%. Lack of knowledge was the most common challenge concerning HFNC implementation.

Conclusion

The findings revealed nuanced applications marked by significant endorsement in certain clinical scenarios and a lack of protocol adherence, underscoring the need for uniform, evidence-based guidelines and enhanced training for RTs. Addressing these challenges is pivotal to optimizing the benefits of HFNC across varied clinical contexts.

Comparison of Oxygen Delivery Devices in Postoperative Patients with Hypoxemia: An Open-labeled Randomized Controlled Study

Background

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is among the more commonly occurring complications in postoperative patients. Supplemental oxygen and addressing the primary etiology form the basis of its treatment.

Materials and methods

We conducted an open-labeled randomized control trial with 90 adult patients and compared three oxygen delivery vehicles (ODV), i.e., noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), and venturi mask (VM) in postoperative hypoxemic patients. The primary outcome variable was a change in the P/F ratio after 2 hours of use of ODV.

Results

It was observed that the change in P/F ratio after 2 hours was similar in all three ODV groups (p = 0.274). The mean values of the post-ODV P/F ratio were comparable with the pre-ODV P/F ratio in all three modalities. The P/F ratio after HFNC was 358.08 ± 117.95; after NIV was 357.60 ± 220.67; and after VM was 355.47 ± 101.90 (p = 0.997).

Conclusion

Among HFNC, NIV, and VM, none of the devices proved superior to the other for use in postoperative hypoxemia.

How to cite this article

Mishra S, Kothari N, Sharma A, Goyal S, Rathod D, Meshram T, et al. Comparison of Oxygen Delivery Devices in Postoperative Patients with Hypoxemia: An Open-labeled Randomized Controlled Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):294-298.

Machine learning prediction of the failure of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a prevalent and serious condition in intensive care unit (ICU), often associated with high mortality rates. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy has gained popularity for treating ARF in recent years. However, there is a limited understanding of the factors that predict HFNO failure in ARF patients. This study aimed to explore early indicators of HFNO failure in ARF patients, utilizing machine learning (ML) algorithms to more accurately pinpoint individuals at elevated risk of HFNO failure. Utilizing ML algorithms, we developed seven predictive models. Their performance was evaluated using various metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration curve, and precision recall curve. The study enrolled 700 patients, with 490 in the training group and 210 in the validation group. The overall HFNO failure rate was 14.1% among the 700 patients. The ML algorithms demonstrated robust performance in our study. This research underscores the potential of ML techniques in creating clinically relevant models for predicting HFNO outcomes in ARF patients. These models could play a pivotal role in enhancing the risk management of HFNO, leading to more patient-centered and personalized care approaches.

The correlation between lung ultrasound scores and outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in infants with severe pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to explore the effectiveness of bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) combined with the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio in evaluating the outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in infants with severe pneumonia.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the clinical data of 150 infants diagnosed with severe pneumonia and treated with HFNC therapy at our hospital from January 2021 to December 2021. These patients were divided into two groups based on their treatment outcomes: the HFNC success group (n = 112) and the HFNC failure group (n = 38). LUS was utilized to evaluate the patients' lung conditions, and blood gas results were recorded for both groups upon admission and after 12 h of HFNC therapy.

RESULTS

At admission, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of age, gender, respiratory rate, partial pressure of oxygen, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide. However, the P/F ratios at admission and after 12 h of HFNC therapy were significantly lower in the HFNC failure group (193.08 ± 49.14, 228.63 ± 80.17, respectively) compared to the HFNC success group (248.51 ± 64.44, 288.93 ± 57.17, respectively) (p < 0.05). Likewise, LUS scores at admission and after 12 h were significantly higher in the failure group (18.42 ± 5.3, 18.03 ± 5.36, respectively) than in the success group (15.09 ± 4.66, 10.71 ± 3.78, respectively) (p < 0.05). Notably, in the success group, both P/F ratios and LUS scores showed significant improvement after 12 h of HFNC therapy, a trend not observed in the failure group. Multivariate regression analysis indicated that lower P/F ratios and higher LUS scores at admission and after 12 h were predictive of a greater risk of HFNC failure. ROC analysis demonstrated that an LUS score > 20.5 at admission predicted HFNC therapy failure with an AUC of 0.695, a sensitivity of 44.7%, and a specificity of 91.1%. A LUS score > 15.5 after 12 h of HFNC therapy had an AUC of 0.874, with 65.8% sensitivity and 89.3% specificity. An admission P/F ratio < 225.5 predicted HFNC therapy failure with an AUC of 0.739, 60.7% sensitivity, and 71.1% specificity, while a P/F ratio < 256.5 after 12 h of HFNC therapy had an AUC of 0.811, 74.1% sensitivity, and 73.7% specificity.

CONCLUSION

Decreased LUS scores and increased P/F ratio demonstrate a strong correlation with successful HFNC treatment outcomes in infants with severe pneumonia. These findings may provide valuable support for clinicians in managing such cases.

Impact of different oxygen therapy strategies on the risk of endotracheal reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a crucial intervention for the support of patients with acute and severe respiratory failure in modern intensive care medicine. However, the mechanical forces resulting from the interplay between the ventilator and the respiratory system may cause pulmonary injury.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and other oxygen therapy modalities on the risk of endotracheal reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients after extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

An electronic search was carried out across various databases including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, VIP, and Wanfang. The objective of this search was to locate prospective randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of multiple oxygen therapy approaches on the incidence of reintubation in patients in the ICU after undergoing mechanical ventilation. The meta package in R language was used to analyze parameters adopted by the included studies such as reintubation rate, mortality rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 22 articles, involving 4,160 participants, with 2,061 in the study group and 2,099 in the control group. Among these, 20 articles presented data on the reintubation rate of the patients included with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.09) for HFNC and an OR of 1.77 (95% CI: 0.93, 3.38) for HFNC in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subgroup. Moreover, 10 articles assessed the incidence of respiratory failure after extubation, revealing an OR for HFNC was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.84) using a fixed-effects model. Nine articles addressed ICU mortality, while 13 pieces of literature examined hospital mortality. HFNC showed no significant impact on either ICU mortality or hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

HFNC therapy markedly reduces the incidence of respiratory failure in mechanically ventilated patients following extubation in the ICU. Furthermore, it specifically reduces the risk of reintubation in patients diagnosed with COPD.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.

OBJECTIVES

We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.

DESIGN

This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, p = 0.0009, I2 = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, p = 0.0007, I2 = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, p = 0.005, I2 = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy in the Management of Respiratory Failure: A Review

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining traction globally as a treatment for respiratory failure. There are several physiological benefits, and there is a growing body of evidence showing improved quality of life and patient comfort with HFNC, both in acute and home settings. Due to the increased burden of long-term respiratory conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on healthcare systems worldwide, the role of ward-based and post-discharge interventions in the prevention of hospital readmissions is an area of increasing interest. In this narrative review, we outline the physiological effects of HFNC and assess its applications in both the hospital and home settings for acute and chronic respiratory failure. We also consider the evidence of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus HFNC in the hospital setting and the application of HFNC at home in stable hypercapnic respiratory failure to improve the quality of life and prevent readmissions. We also look at applications of HFNC in specific circumstances, such as the perioperative period, emergency department, and acute (mainly critical care) setting including in immunocompromised patients and palliative care.

Understanding the use of oxygen delivery devices

Many nurses will care for a patient who requires oxygen therapy, either to treat an acute respiratory condition, such as a lung infection, or a chronic condition, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This article discusses the physiology of gaseous exchange and provides an overview of some of the main respiratory conditions that may result in the need for oxygen therapy. The author also describes the oxygen delivery devices commonly used in clinical practice, such as simple face masks and nasal cannulas, to assist nurses in selecting the most appropriate device.

Clinical study of NFNC in the treatment of acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Most patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) have respiratory failure that necessitates active correction and the improvement of oxygenation is particularly important during treatment. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a non-invasive respiratory aid that is widely used in the clinic that improves oxygenation state, reduces dead space ventilation and breathing effort, protects the loss of cilia in the airways, and improves patient comfort.

AIM

To compare HFNC and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of patients with AECOPD.

METHODS

Eighty AECOPD patients were included in the study. The patients were in the intensive care department of our hospital from October 2019 to October 2021. The patients were divided into the control and treatment groups according to the different treatment methods with 40 patients in each group. Differences in patient comfort, blood gas analysis and infection indices were analyzed between the two groups.

RESULTS

After treatment, symptoms including nasal, throat and chest discomfort were significantly lower in the treatment group compared to the control group on the 3^rd and 5^th days (P < 0.05). Before treatment, the PaO₂, PaO₂/FiO₂, PaCO₂, and SaO₂ in the two groups of patients were not significantly different (P > 0.05). After treatment, the same indicators were significantly improved in both patient groups but had improved more in the treatment group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the white blood cell count, and the levels of C-reactive protein and calcitonin in patients in the treatment group were significantly higher compared to patients in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HFNC treatment can improve the ventilation of AECOPD patients whilst also improving patient comfort, and reducing complications. HFNC is a clinically valuable technique for the treatment of AECOPD.

Combining reservoir mask oxygenation with high-flow nasal cannula in the treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding positive-pressure-ventilation for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hypoxemia led the search for alternative oxygenation techniques. This study aimed to assess one such method, dual oxygenation, i.e., the addition of a reservoir mask (RM) on top of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, the records of all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during 2020-2022 were reviewed. Patients over the age of 18 years with hypoxemia necessitating HFNC were included. Exclusion criteria were positive-pressure-ventilation for any indication other than hypoxemic respiratory failure, transfer to another facility while still on HFNC and "do-not-intubate/resuscitate" orders. The primary outcome was mortality within 30 days from the first application of HFNC. Secondary outcomes were intubation and admission to the intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Of 659 patients included in the final analysis, 316 were treated with dual oxygenation and 343 with HFNC alone. Propensity for treatment was estimated based on background diagnoses, laboratories and vital signs upon admission, gender and glucocorticoid dose. Inverse probability of treatment weighted regression including age, body mass index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and respiratory rate oxygenation index showed treatment with dual oxygenation to be associated with lower 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.615; 95% confidence interval, 0.469-0.809). Differences in the secondary outcomes did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the addition of RM on top of HFNC may be associated with decreased mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 hypoxemia.

Assessing swallowing disorders in adults on high-flow nasal cannula in critical and non-critical care settings. A scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a widely used respiratory support system, which has proven to be effective in different populations. The facilitation of oral communication and feeding have been described as advantages of this support. Nevertheless, swallowing disorders associated with the use of HFNC have been postulated. However, such evidence is scattered in the literature, not systematically searched, and needs to be adequately summarised. This review aimed to explore the literature, to identify and map the evidence, regarding the frequency and methods of assessment of swallowing disorders in adult HFNC users, in both critical and non-critical units.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review will be conducted. A systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and other resources will be conducted. Primary studies, in any language or publication status, assessing the incidence of swallowing disorders in adults with HFNC support will be included. Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The results will be reported narratively, using tables and figures to support them.

DISCUSSION

Positive end-expiratory pressure generated in the airway by HFNC could impair the proper swallowing performance. Knowing the methodological characteristics, the instruments or scales used to assess the presence of dysphagia, and the results of the studies may contribute to considering swallowing assessment in this population on a routine basis, as well as to guide the conduct of new studies that may respond to less researched areas in this topic.

REGISTRATION

Registration number: INPLASY2022110078.

Cost Analysis of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy Compared with Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Severe COVID-19 in Colombia: Data from a Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

A randomized clinical trial (HiFlo-COVID-19 Trial) showed that among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) significantly reduced the need for invasive mechanical ventilation support and time for clinical recovery compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the cost of this strategy is unknown.

Objective

We examined total cost of HFOT treatment compared with COT in real-world setting.

Methods

We conducted a post-trial-based cost analysis from the perspective of a managed competition healthcare system, using actual records of billed costs. Cost categories include general ward, intensive care unit, procedures, imaging, laboratories, medications, supplies, and others.

Results

A total of 188 participants (mean age 60, 33% female) were included. Average costs (and standard deviation) in the HFOT group were USD $7992 (7394) and in the COT group USD $ 10,190 (9402). Differences, however, did not reach statistical significance (P=0.093). However, resource use was always less costly for the HNFO group, with an overall percentage decrease of 27%. Two categories make up 72% of all savings: medications (41%) and intensive care unit (31%).

Conclusion

For patients in ICU with severe COVID-19 the cost of treatment with HFOT as compared to COT is likely to be cost-saving due to less use of medications and length of stay in ICU.

Proposed protocol for utilising high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in treatment of dogs hospitalised due to pneumonia

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy is a non-invasive respiratory support method that provides oxygen-enriched, warmed, and humidified air to respiratory-compromised patients. It is widely used in human medical care, but in veterinary medicine it is still a relatively new method. No practical guidelines exist for its use in canine pneumonia patients, although they could potentially benefit from HFNO therapy. This study aims to provide a new, safe, non-invasive, and effective treatment protocol for oxygen supplementation of non-sedated dogs with pneumonia.

METHODS

Twenty privately owned dogs with pneumonia will receive HFNO therapy at a flow rate of 1-2 L/kg, and the fraction of inspired oxygen will be determined individually (ranging from 21% to 100%). HFNO therapy will continue as long as oxygen support is needed based on clinical evaluation. Patients will be assessed thrice daily during their hospitalisation, with measured primary outcomes including partial pressure of oxygen, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate and type, days in hospital, and survival to discharge.

DISCUSSION

The proposed protocol aims to provide a practical guideline for applying HFNO to dogs hospitalised due to pneumonia. The protocol could enable more efficient and well-tolerated oxygenation than traditional methods, thus hastening recovery and improving survival of pneumonia patients.

Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional nasal cannula during sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective study

Background

The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent method that provides high-flow, heated, humidified gas delivery.

Objectives

We compared HFNC (group HF) and conventional nasal cannula (NC) (group CO) during deep sedation with propofol and remifentanil for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

Design

Single-center, retrospective observational cohort study.

Methods

In this study, a total of 159 cases were analyzed (group CO, 71 and group HF, 88). We collected the data from electronic medical records from September 2020 to June 2021. The lowest oxygen saturation (SpO2), incidence of hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%), rescue interventions, and adverse events between the two groups were investigated.

Results

There were significant differences between the two groups in lowest SpO2 and incidence of hypoxia [group CO versus group HF; 90.3 ± 9.7% versus 95.7 ± 9.0%, 25 (35.2%) versus 10 (11.4%); p < 0.001, p < 0.001; respectively]. Among the rescue interventions, the number of jaw thrust, patient stimulation, O2 flow increase, and nasal airway insertion were significantly higher in the CO group than in the HF group. However, postprocedural chest X-ray showed higher rates of abnormal findings (atelectasis, aspiration, and pneumoperitoneum) in group HF than in group CO [group CO: 8 (11.3%) versus group HF: 26 (29.5%), p = 0.005]. In multivariable analysis, besides group CO, difficult type of lesion was the risk factor for hypoxia.

Conclusions

Compared to the conventional NC, HFNC provided adequate oxygenation and a stable procedure without significant adverse events during sedation for ESD. However, caution is needed to avoid complications associated with deep sedation and difficult type of lesions.

Effect of modified high-flow oxygen therapy on positive end-expiratory pressure and end-expiratory lung volume based on simulated lung platform

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of modified high-flow oxygen therapy on end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in tracheotomized patients with normal pulmonary, acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

A ventilator and an artificial lung model were used to simulate the normal or strong inspiratory effort state of normal lung, AHRF and COPD patients. The traditional high-flow respiratory humidification therapy device connected with a standard interface (group A), and the modified therapy device added two types of resistance valves (group B, inner diameter 7.7 mm, length 24.0 mm; group C, inner diameter 7.7 mm, length 34.0 mm) to the exhalation end of the standard interface. The changes of end-expiratory lung volume (ΔEELV) and PEEP with the increase of flow rate (10 L/min, 20 L/min, 30 L/min, 40 L/min, 50 L/min, 60 L/min) in the three groups was recorded.

Results

Under simulated conditions of normal lung, AHRF and COPD, as the flow rate increased by using the modified therapy device, the PEEP values in all groups showed an exponential increasing trend, and the ΔEELV also increased accordingly. In addition, under the same flow rate level, the PEEP values of the two modified high-flow oxygen therapies (Group B and Group C) were significantly higher than those of the standard high-flow oxygen therapy (Group A) (p < 0.05). In the normal lung model with normal or strong inspiratory effort, and in the AHRF or COPD model with strong inspiratory effort, when the flow rate was higher than 30 L/min, the PEEP levels of Group B were significantly lower than those of Group C (p < 0.05). In the AHRF model with normal inspiratory effort, when the flow rate was between 10 L/min and 60 L/min, the PEEP levels of Group B were significantly lower than those of Group C (p < 0.05). Moreover, in the COPD model with normal inspiratory effort, the PEEP levels of Group B were significantly lower than that of Group C only when the flow rate was 60 L/min (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The addition of different types of resistance valves to the high-flow exhalation end may be a feasible solution to improve the clinical efficacy of tracheotomized high-flow oxygen therapy.

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

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).

Non-rebreather mask and low-flow nasal cannula vs high-flow nasal cannula in severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

To assess the effectiveness of non-rebreather mask combined with low-flow nasal cannula (NRB + NC) compared to high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in improving oxygenation in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO₂) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.

RESULTS

Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO₂, PaO₂/F_IO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO₂ improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).

CONCLUSION

HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.

Difference in PaO2/FiO2 between high-flow nasal cannula and Venturi mask in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients

The ratio between arterial blood partial pressure of oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/FiO₂) was largely used for grading and managing the respiratory failure in non-mechanically ventilated COVID-19. In these patients, the assessment of the true FiO₂ in the inspired mixture may be difficult with consequent inaccuracies in PaO₂/FiO₂ assessment. In 30 severe COVID-19 patients, we observed that PaO₂/FiO₂ values measured immediately before and after the transition from high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) to one commercially available Venturi mask O₂ therapy were similar (bias mean value 0, standard deviation 23 mmHg). In COVID-19 patients recovering from respiratory failure, PaO₂/FiO₂ is not different whether measured with a commercially available Venturi mask or HFNC.

Evidence-based airway management protocol for a critical ill patient in medical intensive care unit: Systematic review

Background

Airway management outside the theatre is performed either to resuscitate a physiologically unstable critically ill patients or to secure an emergency airway in the absence of essential equipments. It is a life saving procedure for critically ill and injured patients. Delaying in securing airway or awaking the patient is not an option in case of difficult airway in intensive care unit. Therefore, developing and implementation of an evidence-based airway management protocol is important.

Objective

This review was conducted to develop a clear airway management protocol for a critical ill patient in medical intensive care unit.

Methods

After formulating the key questions, scope, and eligibility criteria for the evidences to be included, a comprehensive search strategy of electronic sources was conducted. The literatures were searched using advanced searching methods from data bases and websites to get evidences on airway management of a critical ill patient. Duplication of literatures was avoided by endnote. Screening of literatures was conducted based on the level of significance with proper appraisal. This review was carried out in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement.

Results

A total of 626 articles were identified from data bases and websites using an electronic search. Of these articles, 95 were removed for duplication and 305 studies were excluded after reviewing their titles and abstracts. At the screening stage, 79 articles were retrieved and evaluated for the eligibility. Finally, 40 studies related to airway management of a critical ill patient in medical ICU were included in this systematic review.

Conclusion

A critical ill patient needs oxygenation and ventilation support. A focused and rapid assessment, with special attention of the airway and hemodynamic status of the critical ill patient is paramount. An appropriate airway management option should be employed to resuscitate or to control an emergency airway of a critical ill patent. This could be non invasive ventilation or invasive airway intervention.

•

Airway management outside operating theatre is a common practice.

•

A critical ill patient needs oxygenation and ventilation support.

•

A focused airway assessment even in the most urgent situation is mandatory.

•

Usage of appropriate airway management intervention is paramount.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for patients with blunt chest trauma: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is recommended by some scholars as an optimized respiratory support method for blunt chest trauma (BCT) patients. The basis of this recommendation is limited, however, and the efficacy of HFNC or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in BCT patients has not yet been rigorously explored. This study aims to determine if HFNC is non-inferior to NIV in reducing treatment failure in moderate to severe BCT patients with acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

This will be a prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Moderate to severe BCT patients with acute respiratory failure (100mmHg < PaO₂/FiO₂ ≦ 200mmHg) who do not need immediate intubation will be randomized to HFNC or NIV within 48 h after trauma. The primary outcome is treatment failure, defined as invasive ventilation or a switch in respiratory support modality (from HFNC to NIV or vice-versa). Secondary outcomes include arterial blood gas analysis and vital signs at 2 and 12 h after initiating HFNC or NIV treatment, as well as patients' comfort scores, dyspnea scores, daily number of nursing airway care interventions, incidence of pneumonia or pneumothorax, facial skin breakdown, duration of NIV or HFNC, 28-day mortality, and total ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Based on an α error of 5% and a β error of 80%, with a non-inferiority limit of 9%, a sample size of 562 will be required to accomplish the trial goal, considering potential patient dropouts and nonparametric analysis.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that HFNC will be non-inferior to NIV in reducing treatment failure in moderate to severe BCT with acute respiratory failure. The results should be useful for judging whether HFNC could be an effective alternative to NIV to treat moderate to severe BCT patients, especially for those who do not tolerate or have contraindications for NIV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800017313 . Registered on July 24, 2018.

Evolution of the Clinical Profile and Outcomes of Unvaccinated Patients Affected by Critical COVID-19 Pneumonia from the Pre-Vaccination to the Post-Vaccination Waves in Italy

The vaccination campaign and the new SARS-CoV-2 variants may have changed the clinical profile and outcomes of patients admitted to sub-intensive unit care. We conducted a retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological features of unvaccinated critical COVID-19 patients hospitalized during the last pandemic wave (December 2021−February 2022, No-Vax group) and before starting the vaccination campaign (March−December 2020, Pre-Vax group). The No-Vax group was also compared with vaccinated patients of the same pandemic wave (Vax group). With respect to the Pre-Vax group, the No-Vax group contained a higher percentage of smokers (p = 0.0007) and a lower prevalence of males (p = 0.0003). At admission, the No-Vax patients showed both a higher CT score of pneumonia and a worse severe respiratory failure (p < 0.0001). In the No-Vax group, a higher percentage of deaths occurred, though this was not significant. In comparison with the No-Vax group, the Vax patients were older (p = 0.0097), with a higher Charlson comorbidity index (p < 0.0001) and a significantly lower HRCT score (p = 0.0015). The percentage of deaths was not different between the two groups. The No-Vax patients showed a more severe disease in comparison with the Pre-Vax patients, and were younger and had fewer comorbidities than the Vax patients.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen in patients with haematological malignancy: a retrospective observational study

Patients with haematological malignancies (HM) face high rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNCO) is increasingly used to support HM patients in ward settings, but there is limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of HFNCO in this group. We retrospectively reviewed all HM patients receiving ward-based HFNCO, supervised by a critical care outreach service (CCOS), from January 2014 to January 2019. We included 130 consecutive patients. Forty-three (33.1%) were weaned off HFNCO without ICU admission. Eighty-seven (66.9%) were admitted to ICU, 20 (23.3%) required non-invasive and 34 (39.5%) invasive mechanical ventilation. ICU and hospital mortality were 42% and 55% respectively. Initial FiO₂ < 0.4 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.81, p = 0.019) and HFNCO use on the ward > 1 day (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04, 0.59, p = 0.006) were associated with reduced likelihood for ICU admission. Invasive ventilation was associated with reduced survival (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.1-0.7, p = 0.007). No significant adverse events were reported. HM patients receiving ward-based HFNCO have higher rates of ICU admission, but comparable hospital mortality to those requiring CCOS review without respiratory support. Results should be interpreted cautiously, as the model proposed depends on the existence of CCOS.

Clinical efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in acute hypoxaemic patients with COVID-19: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

When COVID-19 patients develop hypoxaemic respiratory failure, they often undergo early intubation. Such a potentially aerosol-generating approach places caregivers at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. This protocol aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We intend to search MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of HFNC in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. We will screen the RCTs against eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently undertake RCT selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcome will be the rate of intubation, and secondary outcomes will be intensive care unit (ICU)/hospital mortality, ICU/hospital length of stay and risks of infection transmission. We will conduct meta-analyses to determine the risk ratio for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) or standardised MD for continuous data. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the different quality of studies, different levels of disease severity, and the age and sex of participants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this study considering this is a systematic review protocol that uses only published data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236519.

ERS International Congress, Virtual 2021: Highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly Early Career Members

Early Career Members of Assembly 2 (Respiratory Intensive Care) attended the European Respiratory Society International Congress through a virtual platform in 2021. Sessions of interest to our assembly members included symposia on the implications of acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotyping on diagnosis and treatment, safe applications of noninvasive ventilation in hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and new developments in mechanical ventilation and weaning, and a guidelines session on applying high-flow therapy in acute respiratory failure. These sessions are summarised in this article.

Early Career Members of @ERSAssembly2 attended the #ERSCongress 2021, and reported on symposia on ARDS phenotyping, noninvasive ventilation in hypoxic respiratory failure, ventilator weaning and high-flow therapy in acute respiratory failurehttps://bit.ly/3D68r50

Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure by covid-19: a retrospective study of the feasebility, safety and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the main forms of treatment for acute respiratory failure. This study aimed to evaluate the effect, safety, and applicability of the NIV and HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we monitored the effect of NIV and HFNC on the SpO₂ and respiratory rate before, during, and after treatment, length of stay, rates of endotracheal intubation, and mortality in patients with AHRF caused by COVID-19. Additionally, data regarding RT-PCR from physiotherapists who were directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19.

RESULTS

62.2% of patients were treated with HFNC. ROX index increased during and after NIV and HFNC treatment (P < 0.05). SpO₂ increased during NIV treatment (P < 0.05), but was not maintained after treatment (P = 0.17). In addition, there was no difference in the respiratory rate during or after the NIV (P = 0.95) or HFNC (P = 0.60) treatment. The mortality rate was 35.7% for NIV vs 21.4% for HFNC (P = 0.45), while the total endotracheal intubation rate was 57.1% for NIV vs 69.6% for HFNC (P = 0.49). Two adverse events occurred during treatment with NIV and eight occurred during treatment with HFNC. There was no difference in the physiotherapists who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 directly involved in assisting COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 ones (P = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

The application of NIV and HFNC in the critical care unit is feasible and associated with favorable outcomes. In addition, there was no increase in the infection of physiotherapists with SARS-CoV-2.

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.

Effectiveness of the use of a high-flow nasal cannula to treat COVID-19 patients and risk factors for failure: a meta-analysis

Background:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally, and many patients with severe cases have received oxygen therapy through a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).

Objectives:

We assessed the efficacy of HFNC for treating patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for HFNC failure.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of HFNC in patients with COVID-19 published in English from January 1st, 2020 to August 15th, 2021. The primary aim was to assess intubation, mortality, and failure rates in COVID-19 patients supported by HFNC. Secondary aims were to compare HFNC success and failure groups and to describe the risk factors for HFNC failure.

Results:

A total of 25 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 2851 patients. The intubation, mortality, and failure rates were 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38–0.51, I² = 84%), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.19–0.29, I² = 88%), and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.42–0.51, I² = 56%), respectively. Compared to the success group, age, body mass index (BMI), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, D-dimer, lactate, heart rate, and respiratory rate were higher and PaO₂, PaO₂/FiO₂, ROX index (the ratio of SpO₂/FiO₂ to respiratory rate), ROX index after the initiation of HFNC, and duration of HFNC were lower in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). There were also more smokers and more comorbidities in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) revealed that older age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07, P = 0.02, I² = 88%), a higher white blood cell (WBC) count (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01–1.12, P = 0.02, I² = 0%), a higher heart rate (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.15–1.76, P < 0.01, I² = 0%), and a lower ROX index(OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.95, P = 0.03, I² = 93%) after the initiation of HFNC were all significant risk factors for HFNC failure.

Conclusions:

HFNC is an effective way of providing respiratory support in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Older age, a higher WBC count, a higher heart rate, and a lower ROX index after the initiation of HFNC are associated with an increased risk of HFNC failure.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Transport: Process, Results, and Considerations

Objective

The current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has increased interest in the use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the transport setting. The purpose of this report was to outline the clinical workflow of using HFNC in transport and the results of a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing interhospital transfer on HFNC.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patient transfers using HFNC between January 2018 and June 2019. The primary data abstracted from patient charts included patient demographics, transport distance, HFNC settings including flow rate in liters per minute and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂), and vital signs.

Results

There was a total of 220 patients, 148 pediatric and 72 adult patients. Both pediatric groups experienced statistically significant reductions in heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. The most common flow rate for both pediatric groups was 10 L/min and 50 L/min for adults. For pediatrics, the most common settings ranged between 30% and 50% Fio₂, with the most common setting being 30% Fio₂. The adult Fio₂ settings ranged from 30% to 100% Fio₂, with the 2 most common settings being 50% Fio₂ and 80% Fio₂. No patients were intubated during the transport encounter.

Conclusion

Our study provides evidence that HFNC is feasible and tolerated by patients and is an additional option for noninvasive ventilation in transport across the age continuum. Future studies are needed to compare HFNC with other noninvasive modalities that include assessing patient tolerance and comfort as contributing factors and to identify indications and contraindications for use in the transport setting.

High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raging around the world, the effectiveness of respiratory support treatment has dominated people’s field of vision. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and value of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for COVID-19 patients.

Methods:

A comprehensive systematic review via PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, WHO database, China Biology Medicine Disc (SINOMED), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the results and risk of bias. The primary outcome is the number of deaths at day 28. The secondary outcomes are the occurrence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the number of deaths (no time-limited), length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, ventilator-free days, and oxygenation index [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂)/fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO₂)] at 24 h.

Results:

In total, nine studies [one randomized controlled trial (RCT), seven retrospective studies, and one prospective study] totaling 1582 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the incidence of IMV, number of deaths (no time-limited), and length of ICU stay were not statistically significant in the HFNC group compared with the NIV group (ps = 0.71, 0.31, and 0.33, respectively). Whereas the HFNC group performed significant advantages in terms of the number of deaths at day 28, length of hospital stay and oxygenation index (p < 0.05). Only in the ventilator-free days did NIV show advantages over the HFNC group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

For COVID-19 patients, the use of HFNC therapy is associated with the reduction of the number of deaths at day 28 and length of hospital stay, and can significantly improve oxygenation index (PaO₂/FiO₂) at 24 h. However, there was no favorable between the HFNC and NIV groups in the occurrence of IMV. NIV group was superior only in terms of ventilator-free days.

High-flow nasal oxygenation reduces the risk of desaturation in adults receiving procedural sedation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Procedural sedation reduces patients’ discomfort and anxiety, facilitating performance of the examination and intervention. However, it may also cause adverse events, including airway obstruction and hypoxia. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) compared with that of standard oxygen therapy in adult patients undergoing procedural sedation.

Methods

We identified randomized controlled trials published before November 2020 based on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Intraprocedural desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 90%] was evaluated as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the lowest SpO₂, need for airway intervention, oxygen therapy-related complications, and patient, operator, and anesthetist’s satisfaction.

Results

Six trials with a total of 2633 patients were reviewed. Patients using HFNO compared with standard oxygen therapy had a significantly lower risk of intraprocedural desaturation [risk ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.87]. The lowest intraprocedural SpO₂ in HFNO group was significantly higher than that in standard oxygen therapy group (mean difference 4.19%, 95% CI 1.74-6.65).

Conclusions

Compared with standard oxygen therapy, HFNO may reduce the risk of desaturation and increase the lowest SpO₂ in adult patients undergoing sedation for medical procedures.

Should high-flow through nasal cannula be used during bronchoscopy in critically ill patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure?

Flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) is an invasive procedure with diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes commonly used in critically ill patients. FOB may be complicated by desaturation, onset or worsening of the respiratory failure, and hemodynamic instability due to cardio-respiratory alterations occurring during the procedure. Increasing evidences suggest the use of high-flow through nasal cannula (HFNC) over conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Indeed, HFNC has a rationale and possible physiologic advantages, even during FOB. However, to date, evidences in favor of HFNC over COT or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) during FOB are still weak. Nonetheless, in critically ill patients with hypoxemic ARF, the choice of the oxygenation strategy during a FOB is challenging. Based on a review of the literature, HFNC may be preferred over COT in patients with mild to moderate hypoxemic ARF, without cardiac failure or hemodynamic instability. On the opposite, in critically ill patients with more severe hypoxemic ARF or in the presence of cardiac failure or hemodynamic instability, CPAP or NIV, applied with specifically designed interfaces, may be preferred over HFNC.

Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients With Pneumonia and Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure at Altitudes Above 2600 m: What Is the Best Predictor of Success?

Introduction: The use of high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) in patients with hypoxemic ventilatory failure reduces the need for mechanical ventilation and does not increase mortality when intubation is promptly applied. The aim of the study is to describe the behavior of HFNC in patients who live at high altitudes, and the performance of predictors of success/failure of this strategy. Methods: Prospective multicenter cohort study, with patients aged over 18 years recruited for 12 months in 2020 to 21. All had a diagnosis of hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to pneumonia, were admitted to intensive care units, and were receiving initial management with a high-flow nasal cannula. The variables assessed included need for intubation, mortality in ICU, and the validation of SaO2, respiratory rate (RR) and ROX index (IROX) as predictors of HFNC success / failure. Results: One hundred and six patients were recruited, with a mean age of 59 years and a success rate of 74.5%. Patients with treatment failure were more likely to be obese (BMI 27.2 vs 25.5; OR: 1.03; 95% CI: .95-1.1) and had higher severity scores at admission (APACHE II 12 vs 20; OR 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06-1.24). Respiratory rates after 12 (AUC .81 CI: .70-.92) and 18 h (AUC .85 CI: .72-0.90) of HFNC use were the best predictors of failure, performing better than those that included oxygenation. ICU mortality was higher in the failure group (6% vs 29%; OR 8.8; 95% CI:1.75-44.7). Conclusions: High-flow oxygen cannula therapy in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure living at altitudes above 2600 m is associated with low rates of therapy failure and a reduced need for mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The geographical conditions and secondary physiological changes influence the performance of the traditionally validated predictors of therapy success. Respiratory rate <30 proved to be the best indicator of early success of the device at 12 h of use.

Nasal high flow therapy use in wards in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may spare ICU resources

Nasal high flow therapy has been previously studied for the management of acute hypoxic respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but the data regarding its use outside of the intensive care unit are sparse. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of nasal high flow therapy outside of the intensive care unit in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and known chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We conducted a retrospective matched historic cohort study of adult patients with diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presenting with acute hypoxic respiratory failure between December 2017 to June 2019, after the initiation of a new protocol, which allowed patients to be managed with nasal high flow therapy on the medical/surgical wards instead of transferring them to the ICU per prior standard of care. Nasal high flow therapy was initiated either in the emergency department or on the medical/surgical wards. Patients were matched with historical cohorts who were managed with prior standard of care based on age, body mass index, comorbidities, and home oxygen use. Primary outcome of interest was difference in rates of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, total number of days spent in the intensive care unit, and in-hospital mortality. A total of 90 patients met study inclusion criteria and were matched to 90 historical control patients. Among the study group, 8% required mechanical ventilation versus 9% in the control group (p = 0.79). Hospital length of stay was 7 days in study group versus 6 days in control group (p = 0.02), and in-hospital mortality was the same in both study and control groups at 12% (p = 0.99). Nineteen percent of study group patients required ICU level of care at any time during the admission compared with 49% of control group (p < 0.001). Nasal high flow therapy use in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outside of the intensive care unit may spare ICU resources and cost without delay in definitive care such as mechanical ventilation.

Stratifying risk outcomes among adult COVID-19 inpatients with high flow oxygen: The R4 score

Background

High flow oxygen therapy (HFO) is a widely used intervention for pulmonary complications. Amid the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, HFO became a popular alternative to conventional oxygen supplementation therapies. Risk stratification tools have been repurposed –and new ones developed– to estimate outcome risks among COVID-19 patients. This study aims to provide a simple risk stratification system to predict invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death among COVID-19 inpatients on HFO.

Methods

Among 529 adult inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia, we selected unadjusted clinical risk factors for developing the composite endpoint of IMV or death. The risk for the primary outcome by each category was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Bootstrapping was used to validate the results.

Results

Age above 62, eGFR under 60 ml/min, room air SpO2 ≤89 % upon admission, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, and any comorbidity (cancer, cardiovascular disease, COPD/ asthma, hypothyroidism, or autoimmune disease) were considered for the score. Each of the six criteria scored 1 point. The score was further simplified into 4 categories: 1) 0 criteria, 2) 1 criterion, 3) 2-3 criteria, and 4) ≥4 criteria. Taking the first category as the reference, risk estimates for the primary endpoint were HR; 2.94 [1.67 – 5.26], 4.08 [2.63 – 7.05], and 6.63 [3.74 – 11.77], respectively. In ROC analysis, the AUC for the model was 0.72.

Conclusions

Our score uses simple criteria to estimate the risk for IMV or death among COVID-19 inpatients with HFO. Higher category reflects consistent increases in risk for the endpoint.

Changes in Oxygenation and Clinical Outcomes with Awake Prone Positioning in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 In Low-Resource Settings: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to describe the use of awake prone positioning (APP) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with suspected coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and respiratory failure in a limited-resource setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients aged ≥18 years old who were placed in an awake prone position due to hypoxemic respiratory failure and suspected COVID-19. The patients were selected from a tertiary center in Cartagena, Colombia, between March 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were collated, and all the variables were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The median age of the participants was 63 (IQR, 48.8-73) years (survivors: 59 [IQR, 43.568] years vs. non-survivors: 70 [IQR, 63-78] years, P ≤ .001). Of the 1470 patients admitted for respiratory symptoms, 732 (49.8%) were hospitalized for more than 24 h, and 212 patients developed respiratory failure and required COT and APP (overall hospital mortality, 34% [73/212]). The mean rank difference in PaO₂/FiO₂ before and after APP was higher in the survivors than in the non-survivors (201.1-252.6, mean rank difference = 51.5, P = .001 vs. 134.1-172.4, mean rank difference = 38.28, P = .24, respectively).

CONCLUSION

While using COT in conjunction with APP can improve respiratory failure in patients with suspected COVID-19 in low-resource settings, persistent hypoxemia after APP can identify patients with higher mortality risk. More evidence is needed to establish the role of this strategy.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Patients with COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Early use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) decreases the need for endotracheal intubation (EI) in different respiratory failure causes. While HFNC is used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) under weak recommendations, its efficacy remains to be investigated.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to examine HFNC efficacy in preventing EI among COVID-19 patients with AHRF. Secondary objectives were to determine predictors of HFNC success/failure, mortality rate, and length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary care centre in Saudi Arabia from April to August 2020. Adult patients admitted to the ICU with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with HFNC were included. We excluded patients who were intubated or managed with non-invasive ventilation before HFNC.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients received HFNC for a median duration of 3 days (interquartile range, 1-5 days). The mean age was 57 ± 14 years, and 86% were men. HFNC failure and EI occurred in 29 (66%) patients. Patients in whom HNFC treatment failed had a higher risk of death (52% versus 0%; P = 0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors, a high SOFA score and a low ROX index were significantly associated with HFNC failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.93; P = 0.025; and HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who received HFNC did not require intubation. High SOFA score and low ROX index were associated with HFNC failure.

Effects of high-flow nasal oxygen cannula versus other noninvasive ventilation in extubated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the effects of high-flow nasal oxygen cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in extubated patients with respiratory insufficiency.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 28 February 2021, to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was reintubation within 24-72 hours after a planned extubation. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Six articles with1746 patients were included. The effect of HFNC on the reintubation rate was noninferior to that of NIV (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.44). The rate of treatment failure was 20.40% with HFNC versus 20.92% with NIV; this difference was nonsignificant (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.72-1.32, P = 0.85). HFNC reduced the rates of skin lesion occurrence (10.28% versus 23.82%, OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.53, P < 0.00001) and post-extubation respiratory failure (23.76% versus 25.56%, OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88, P = 0.006), compared with NIV.

CONCLUSIONS

In extubated patients, HFNC was noninferior to NIV in the rate of reintubation and treatment failure. Compared with NIV, HFNC decreased the occurrence of skin lesions and post-extubation respiratory failure.

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy reduces the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and acute exacerbation but does not increase exercise capacity or decrease hospitalisation or mortality. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, the use of high-flow nasal cannula decreases arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and increases the partial pressure of oxygen and 6-min walking distance.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies published from database inception to November 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist). The primary outcomes were partial pressure of carbon dioxide and partial pressure of oxygen, and the secondary outcomes were transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and 6-min walking distance.

RESULTS

Nine studies (680 patients) were included. high-flow nasal cannula did not decrease partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with the control interventions (mean difference = -0.81, 95% confidence interval: -2.68 to 1.06, p = .395; I²  = 42.9%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .105). high-flow nasal cannula decreased partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with long-term oxygen therapy (mean difference = -3.25, 95% confidence interval: -5.65 to -0.85, p = .008; I²  = 0%, p_{heterogeneity}   = .375); no difference was observed for the control modalities. high-flow nasal cannula resulted in better partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with control interventions in hypoxemic patients (mean difference = -2.59, 95% confidence interval: -4.82 to -0.35, p = .023; I²  = 32.5%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .224), but not in other types of patients. high-flow nasal cannula did not increase partial pressure of oxygen compared with the control interventions (mean difference = 1.17, 95% confidence interval: -1.50 to 3.83, p = .390; I²  = 0%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .660). high-flow nasal cannula decreased transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide) compared with the control interventions (mean difference = 2.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.07-4.68, p = .044; I²  = 8.7%, p_{heterogeneity}   = .295). high-flow nasal cannula increased 6-min walking distance compared with the control interventions (mean difference = 18.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-,35.57, p = .040; I²  = 0%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .918). The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula did not significantly decrease partial pressure of carbon dioxide or increase partial pressure of oxygen in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, which is different from the previous meta-analysis, but it decreases transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and increased 6-min walking distance.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This meta-analysis shows that in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high-flow nasal cannula improves both transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and 6-min walking distance, suggesting the high-flow nasal cannula has benefits in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Considering that the literature suggests no impact of high-flow nasal cannula on hospitalisation and mortality, the benefits of high-flow nasal cannula might be limited to the patients who survive the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease events. Still, the global impact of high-flow nasal cannula on the quality of life of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease should be examined.

Prone position combined with high-flow nasal oxygen could benefit spontaneously breathing, severe COVID-19 patients: A case report

BACKGROUND

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China in December 2019, the overall fatality rate of severe and critical patients with COVID-19 is high and the effective therapy is limited.

CASE SUMMARY

In this case report, we describe a case of the successful combination of the prone position (PP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy in a spontaneously breathing, severe COVID-19 patient who presented with fever, fatigue and hypoxemia and was diagnosed by positive throat swab COVID-19 RNA testing. The therapy significantly improved the patient's clinical symptoms, oxygenation status, and radiological characteristics of lung injury during hospitalization, and the patient showed good tolerance and avoided intubation. Additionally, we did not find that medical staff wearing optimal airborne personal protective equipment (PPE) were infected by the new coronavirus in our institution.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the combination of PP and HFNO could benefit spontaneously breathing, severe COVID-19 patients. The therapy does not increase risk of healthcare workers wearing optimal airborne PPE to become infected with virus particles.

The Role of High Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19 Associated Pneumomediastinum and Pneumothorax

Background: Pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and pneumothorax are not rarely observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such complications can worsen gas exchange and the overall prognosis in critical patients. The aim of this study is to investigate what predisposing factors are related to pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax in SARS-CoV2-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), what symptoms may predict a severe and potentially fatal complication and what therapeutical approach may provide a better outcome. Methods: In this single center cohort study, we recorded data from 45 critically ill COVID-19 patients who developed one or more complicating events among pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and pneumothorax. All patients showed ARDS and underwent non-invasive ventilation (NIV) at baseline. Patients with mild to moderate ARDS and pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax (n = 25) received High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC), while patients with severe ARDS and pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax underwent HFNC (n = 10) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (n = 10). Results: Pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax developed in 10.5% of subjects affected by SARS-coV2-ARDS. Dyspnea affected 40% and cough affected 37% of subjects. High resolution computed tomography of the chest showed bilateral diffuse ground glass opacities (GGO) in 100% of subjects. Traction bronchiolectasis, reticulation, crazy paving and distortion were observed in 64%. Furthermore, 36% showed subcutaneous emphysema. Non-severe ARDS cases received HFNC, and 76% patients recovered from pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax over a median follow up of 5 days. Among severe ARDS cases the recovery rate of pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax was 70% with the HFNC approach, and 10% with IMV. Conclusion: HFNC is a safe and effective ventilatory approach for critical COVID-19 and has a positive role in associated complications such as pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy on Pediatric Patients With Congenital Heart Disease in Procedural Sedation: A Prospective, Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

The study was conducted to compare the outcome of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy with conventional oxygen therapy through a simple oxygen mask for pediatric patients with congenital heart disease during percutaneous intervention while under procedural sedation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized and controlled trial.

SETTING

A Cantonese cardiac center in China.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred American Society of Anesthesiologists classification II pediatric patients were enrolled from April 25, 2018 to November 28, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients scheduled for percutaneous closure of a heart defect under deep sedation with propofol, midazolam and fentanyl by an anesthesiologist were randomized (1:1) to receive oxygen therapy through a simple oxygen mask or through the HFNC system.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO₂). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hypoxia (SpO₂ < 90%), requirement for noninvasive respiratory support, change in the gastric antrum area and other adverse events. Blood gas analysis results also were compared. Oxygen therapy through the HFNC system improved the lowest SpO₂ (99% [94%-100%]), as compared with the mask group (99% [72%-100%]), p < 0.001. Seven patients out of 99 (7.1%) in the mask group had hypoxia or required bag-mask ventilation, whereas no such patient was reported in the HFNC group, p < 0.001. There were no differences between the groups in terms of gastric distention, procedure length, total propofol dose, atropine use or other complications.

CONCLUSION

When compared with simple mask oxygenation, HFNC could reduce the incidence of desaturation, the need for airway assisted ventilation and risk of carbon dioxide retention without causing hemodynamic instability or gastric distention. It is effective for pediatric patients with non-cyanotic congenital heart disease who require procedural sedation.

Safety of changes in the use of noninvasive ventilation and high flow oxygen therapy on reintubation in a surgical intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study

Reintubation after weaning from mechanical ventilation is relatively common and is associated with poor outcomes. Different methods to decrease the reintubation rate post extubation, including noninvasive ventilation, and more recently high-flow oxygen (HFO) therapy, have been proposed. In this study, we aimed to assess the safety of introducing HFO in the post-extubation care of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We conducted a single-center cohort study of extubated adult patients hospitalized in a surgical ICU and previously mechanically ventilated for > 1 day. Our study consisted of two phases: Phase 1 (before the introduction of HFO from April 2015 to April 2016) and Phase P2 (after the introduction of HFO from April 2017 to April 2018). The primary endpoint was the reintubation rate within 48 hours of extubation. In total, 290 patients (median age 65 years [50–74]; 190 men [65.5%]) were included in the analysis (181 and 109 in Phases 1 and 2, respectively). The results of the post-extubation use of noninvasive methods (noninvasive ventilation and/or HFO) were not significantly different between the two phases (41 [22.7%] versus 29 [26.6%] patients; p = 0.480), however these methods were implemented earlier in Phase 2 (0 versus 4 hours; p = 0.009) and HFO was used significantly more often than noninvasive ventilation (24 [22.0%] versus 25 [13.8%] patients; p = 0.039). The need for reintubation within 48 hours post extubation was significantly lower in Phase 2 (4 [3.7%] versus 20 [11.0%] patients; p = 0.028) but was not significantly different at 7 days post extubation (10 [9.2%] versus 30 [16.6%] patients; p = 0.082). The earlier implementation of noninvasive methods and the increased use of HFO beginning in Phase 2 were safe and effective based on the reintubation rates within the first 48 hours post extubation and after 7 days.

Physiological Effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy and Its Use in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an open oxygen delivery system, which provides heated and humidified oxygen at a high flow (up to 60 L/min). This effect can improve mucociliary function, airway clearance, and level of comfort to the patient. It can provide controlled and adequate fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) between 21% and 100%. Generation of end-expiratory pressure helps in carbon dioxide washout, reduction of anatomical dead space, and recruitment of collapsed alveoli, ultimately improving tissue oxygenation.

The use of HFNC in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, post-extubation period, pre-intubation period, respiratory infection, and obstructive airway disease has been extensively studied, but there are very few studies regarding its use in cardiogenic pulmonary edema. This review provides the current understanding of the physiological effect of HFNC and its application in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). We conducted a literature search on PubMed using appropriate terms and reviewed relevant articles published within the last 10 years. We found that initial therapy with HFNC in ACPE patients can improve oxygenation and respiratory rate. HFNC can potentially be an alternative to non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation in terms of initial oxygen therapy in patients with ACPE. There is a need for larger prospective studies to evaluate and develop guidelines to consider the use of HFNC in patients with ACPE. We also highlight the fact that if there is no improvement in arterial blood gas parameters after HFNC therapy, initiation of invasive ventilation should not be delayed.

Surgical mask on top of high-flow nasal cannula improves oxygenation in critically ill COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure

Objective

Critically ill patients admitted in ICU because of COVID-19 infection display severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends oxygenation through high-flow nasal cannula over non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome of our study was to evaluate the effect of the addition of a surgical mask on a high-flow nasal cannula system on oxygenation parameters in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients admitted in ICU who do not require urgent intubation. The secondary outcomes were relevant changes in PaCO₂ associated with clinical modifications and patient’s feelings.

Design

We prospectively assessed 21 patients admitted in our mixed Intensive Care Unit of the Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc.

Main results

While FiO2 was unchanged, we demonstrate a significant increase of PaO₂ (from 59 (± 6), to 79 mmHg (± 16), p < 0.001), PaO₂/FiO₂ from 83 (± 22), to 111 (± 38), p < 0.001) and SaO₂ (from 91% (± 1.5), to 94% (± 1.6), p < 0.001), while the patients were under the surgical mask. The SpO₂ returned to pre-treatment values when the surgical mask was removed confirming the effect of the device rather than a spontaneous positive evolution.

Conclusion

A surgical mask placed on patient’s face already treated by a High-flow nasal cannula device improves COVID-19 patient’s oxygenation admitted in Intensive Care Unit for severe hypoxemic respiratory failure without any clinically relevant side.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission

PURPOSE

We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.

SOURCE

Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.