Physiopathological rationale of using high-flow nasal therapy in the acute and chronic setting: A narrative review

High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Although cumulative studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, randomized trials to compare HFNC with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as initial treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure are limited. The aim of this randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial was to compare treatment failure rates between HFNC and NIV in such patients.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with AECOPD with a baseline arterial blood gas pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg admitted to two intensive care units (ICUs) at a large tertiary academic teaching hospital between March 2018 and December 2022 were randomly assigned to HFNC or NIV. The primary endpoint was the rate of treatment failure, defined as endotracheal intubation or a switch to the other study treatment modality. Secondary endpoints were rates of intubation or treatment change, blood gas values, vital signs at one, 12, and 48 h, 28-day mortality, as well as ICU and hospital lengths of stay.

RESULTS

225 total patients (113 in the HFNC group and 112 in the NIV group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The failure rate of the HFNC group was 25.7%, while the NIV group was 14.3%. The failure rate risk difference between the two groups was 11.38% (95% CI 0.25-21.20, P = 0.033), which was higher than the non-inferiority cut-off of 9%. In the per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in 28 of 110 patients (25.5%) in the HFNC group and 15 of 109 patients (13.8%) in the NIV group (risk difference, 11.69%; 95% CI 0.48-22.60). The intubation rate in the HFNC group was higher than in the NIV group (14.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.026). The treatment switch rate, ICU and hospital length of stay or 28-day mortality in the HFNC group were not statistically different from the NIV group (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

HFNC was not shown to be non-inferior to NIV and resulted in a higher incidence of treatment failure than NIV when used as the initial respiratory support for AECOPD patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

chictr.org (ChiCTR1800014553). Registered 21 January 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn.

High-Flow Oxygen Therapy in the Perioperative Setting and Procedural Sedation: A Review of Current Evidence

High-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) is a respiratory support system, through which high flows of humidified and heated gas are delivered to hypoxemic patients. Several mechanisms explain how HFOT improves arterial blood gases and enhances patients' comfort. Some mechanisms are well understood, but others are still unclear and under investigation. HFOT is an interesting oxygen-delivery modality in perioperative medicine that has many clinical applications in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the operating room (OR). The purpose of this article was to review the literature for a comprehensive understanding of HFOT in the perioperative period, as well as its uses in procedural sedation. This review will focus on the HFOT definition, its physiological benefits, and their mechanisms, its clinical uses in anesthesia, and when it is contraindicated.

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial

RATIONALE

In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg).

RESULTS

Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference -8.2% (95% CI -18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI -1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference -3.3% (95% CI -9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8-17) vs 11 (IQR 7-20) days, absolute risk difference -1.0% (95% CI -3.1% to +1.1%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04655638.

The role of high-flow nasal therapy in bronchiectasis: a post hoc analysis

High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) is a gas delivery system that provides heated and humidified air or supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula. The role of HFNT in airways disease has primarily focused on COPD. Studies in patients with COPD have demonstrated improvement in quality-of-life scores and reduced acute exacerbations with HFNT use [1, 2].

High-flow nasal therapy significantly reduces exacerbation rates and improves quality of life in patients with stable bronchiectasis. High-flow nasal therapy is therefore a potential treatment option for patients with bronchiectasis.https://bit.ly/2JFXuQc

High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation as initial ventilatory strategy in COPD exacerbation: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial

Background

The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO₂ clearance after 2 h of treatment.

Methods

We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO₂ from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO₂ at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes.

Results

Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO₂ reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO₂ reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO₂ reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis.

Conclusions

HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO₂ after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD.

Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

High Flow Nasal Therapy Use in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD and Bronchiectasis: A Feasibility Study

The efficacy and feasibility of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) use in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and bronchiectasis is unknown. We performed a single-center, single-arm prospective observational study in patients with AECOPD, documented bronchiectasis, pH ≥ 7.35, respiratory rate (RR) ≥ 26 breaths/minute despite receiving maximal medical treatment and oxygen via face mask up to 10 L/m. Patients received HFNT (Airvo 2, Fisher & Paykel) at a gas flow of 50 L/min and FIO₂ adjusted to maintain SpO₂ ≥92%. Dyspnea, rated by Borg scale, RR, arterial blood gases and mucus production (ranging from 1 to 3) were collected before and 1 h after starting HFNT and then every 24 h for 3 days. Tolerance was measured using a visual analogic scale (VAS). Fifteen patients were enrolled. After 24 h, patients showed a significant improvement in dyspnea score [Borg scale from 6.7 ± 1.4 to 4.1 ± 1.3 (p<.001)]; RR decreased from 29.6 ± 2.7 breaths/min to 23.2 ± 2.9 breaths/min (p<.001); pCO2 significantly decreased after 24 h [58.4 ± 13 vs. 51.7 ± 8.2 (p=.003)] while quantity of mucus production increased [(1.1 ± 0,6 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7, p<.001)]. No patient received invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Overall VAS score for HFNT tolerance was 6.5. HFNT was effective in improving dyspnea score, decreasing RR, improving gas exchange, and increasing mucus production in patients with AECOPD and coexisting bronchiectasis. Moreover, no safety concerns on its use were detected. Nevertheless, due to the single-arm design, the effect of HFNT could not be isolated from standard pharmacological treatment due to the study design.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula: A Promising Oxygen Therapy for Patients with Severe Bronchial Asthma Complicated with Respiratory Failure

Severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure, a common critical illness in respiratory medicine, may be life-threatening. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a novel oxygen therapy technique developed in recent years. HFNC was applied in this study for treating adult patients with severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure. Its efficacy was analyzed comparatively to conventional oxygen therapy (COT). HFNC and COT were randomly performed based on conventional treatment. The HFNC group was similar to COT-treated patients in terms of response rate, with no significant difference in efficacy between the two groups. In patients with bronchial asthma, effectively increased PO₂ and reduced PCO₂ were observed after treatment in both groups. However, HFNC was more efficient than COT in elevating PO₂ in patients with severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure, while no statistically significant difference in PCO₂ reduction was found between the two groups. Heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) between the two groups on admission (0 h) and at 2, 8, 24, and 48 h after admission were compared. Both indicators significantly decreased with time. No significant differences in HR and RR were found between the groups at 0, 2, and 8 h after admission. However, these indicators were significantly lower in the HFNC group compared with the COT group at 24 and 48 h after admission. HFNC could significantly elevate PO₂ and reduce HR and RR. Thus, it is a promising option for patients with severe bronchial asthma complicated with respiratory failure.

Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO 2 <90%, PaO 2 :FiO 2 ratio ≤300, PaO 2 ≤60 mm Hg, or PaCO 2 ≥45 mm Hg. The intervention is HFNO (humidified oxygen, flow rate ≥20 L/min) compared separately to NIV or COT. The critical outcomes are: all-cause mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, intubation/reintubation (days of intubation), intensive care unit admission/transfers, patient comfort and hospital length of stay. The important outcomes are: delirium, 30-day hospital readmissions, barotrauma, compromised nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition), gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge and skin breakdown or pressure ulcers. We will calculate risk ratios and Peto ORs (for rare events) and corresponding 95% CIs for categorical outcomes. Mean and standardised mean difference will be calculated for continuous outcomes. Where possible and appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019146691.

Effects of high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation on inspiratory effort in hypercapnic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preliminary study

Background

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is preferred as the initial ventilatory support to treat acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be an alternative method; however, the effects of HFNC in hypercapnic COPD are not well known. This preliminary study aimed at assessing the physiologic effects of HFNC at different flow rates in hypercapnic COPD and to compare it with NIV.

Methods

A prospective physiologic study enrolled 12 hypercapnic COPD patients who had initially required NIV, and were ventilated with HFNC at flow rates increasing from 10 to 50 L/min for 15 min in each step. The primary outcome was the effort to breathe estimated by a simplified esophageal pressure–time product (sPTP_es). The other studied variables were respiratory rate, oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and transcutaneous CO₂ pressure (PtcCO₂).

Results

Before NIV initiation, the median [interquartile range] pH was 7.36 [7.28–7.37] with a PaCO₂ of 51 [42–60] mmHg. sPTP_es per minute was significantly lower with HFNC at 30 L/min than 10 and 20 L/min (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ with NIV (median inspiratory/expiratory positive airway pressure of 11 [10–12] and [5–5] cmH₂O, respectively). At 50 L/min, sPTPes per minute increased compared to 30 L/min half of the patients. Respiratory rate was lower (p = 0.003) and SpO₂ was higher (p = 0.028) with higher flows (30–50 L/min) compared to flow rate of 10 L/min and not different than with NIV. No significant differences in PtcCO₂ between NIV and HFNC at different flow rates were observed (p = 0.335).

Conclusions

Applying HFNC at 30 L/min for a short duration reduces inspiratory effort in comparison to 10 and 20 L/min, and resulted in similar effect than NIV delivered at modest levels of pressure support in hypercapnic COPD with mild to moderate exacerbation. Higher flow rates reduce respiratory rate but sometimes increase the effort to breathe. Using HFNC at 30 L/min in hypercapnic COPD patients should be further evaluated. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20160902001. Registered 31 August 2016, http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=2008.

Protocolized Post-Extubation Respiratory Support to prevent reintubation: protocol and statistical analysis plan for a clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Following extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation, nearly one in seven critically ill adults requires reintubation. Reintubation is independently associated with increased mortality. Postextubation respiratory support (non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula applied at the time of extubation) has been reported in small-to-moderate-sized trials to reduce reintubation rates among hypercapnic patients, high-risk patients without hypercapnia and low-risk patients without hypercapnia. It is unknown whether protocolised provision of postextubation respiratory support to every patient undergoing extubation would reduce the overall reintubation rate, compared with usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Protocolized Post-Extubation Respiratory Support (PROPER) trial is a pragmatic, cluster cross-over trial being conducted between 1 October 2017 and 31 March 2019 in the medical intensive care unit of Vanderbilt University Medical Center. PROPER compares usual care versus protocolized post-extubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol that advises the provision of non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula based on patient characteristics). For the duration of the trial, the unit is divided into two clusters. One cluster receives protocolised support and the other receives usual care. Each cluster crosses over between treatment group assignments every 3 months. All adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation are enrolled except those who received less than 12 hours of mechanical ventilation, have 'Do Not Intubate' orders, or have been previously reintubated during the hospitalisation. The anticipated enrolment is approximately 630 patients. The primary outcome is reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03288311.

High-flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in COPD patients with mild-to-moderate hypercapnic acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a noninferiority randomized clinical trial

Background

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is indicated to treat respiratory acidosis due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent nonrandomized studies also demonstrated some physiological effects of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in COPD patients. We designed a prospective, unblinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to assess the noninferiority of HFNT compared to NIV with respect to the reduction of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) in patients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis.

Methods

We will enroll adult patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, as defined by arterial pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg. Patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive NIV or HFNT. NIV will be applied through a mask with a dedicated ventilator in pressure support mode. Positive end-expiratory pressure will be set at 3–5 cmH₂O with inspiratory support to obtain a tidal volume between 6 and 8 ml/kg of ideal body weight. HFNT will be initially set at a temperature of 37 °C and a flow of 60 L/min. At 2 and 6 h we will assess arterial blood gases, vital parameters, respiratory rate, treatment intolerance and failure, need for endotracheal intubation, time spent under mechanical ventilation (both invasive and NIV), intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality.

Based on an α error of 5% and a β error of 80%, with a standard deviation for PaCO₂ equal to 15 mmHg and a noninferiority limit of 10 mmHg, we computed a sample size of 56 patients. Considering potential drop-outs and nonparametric analysis, the final computed sample size was 80 patients (40 per group).

Discussion

HFNT is more comfortable than NIV in COPD patients recovering from an episode of exacerbation. If HFNT would not be inferior to NIV, HFNT could be considered as an alternative to NIV to treat COPD patients with mild-to-moderate respiratory acidosis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03370666. Registered on December 12, 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3514-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.