High-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with dyspnea and hypoxemia before hospitalization

The occurrence mechanism, assessment, and non-pharmacological treatment of dyspnea

Dyspnea is a subjective sensation often described as a feeling of respiratory effort, tightness, or air hunger. The underlying mechanisms of this symptom are multifaceted and involve factors such as respiratory centers, cardiovascular system, airways, neuromuscular components, and metabolic factors, although not fully elucidated. The classical theory of imbalance between inspiratory neural drive (IND) and the simultaneous dynamic responses of the respiratory system posits that the disruption of a normal and harmonious relationship fundamentally shapes the expression of respiratory discomfort. Assessment and comprehensive treatment of dyspnea are crucial for patient rehabilitation, including subjective self-reporting and objective clinical measurements. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as pulmonary rehabilitation, fan therapy, exercise, chest wall vibration, virtual reality technology, traditional Chinese medicine (acupuncture and acupressure), and yoga, have shown promise in alleviating dyspnea symptoms. Additionally, oxygen therapy, has demonstrated short-term benefits for patients with pre-hospital respiratory distress and hypoxemia. This review provides a comprehensive overview of dyspnea, emphasizing the importance of a multifaceted approach for its assessment and management, with a focus on non-pharmacological interventions that contribute to enhanced patient outcomes and quality of life.

Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy for high-risk patients during bronchoscopy examination: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been proven to improve oxygenation and avoid intubation in hypoxemic patients. It has also been utilized during endoscopy examination to reduce the incidence of hypoxia. However, little is known about the effects of HFNC versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on oxygenation during bronchoscopy examination via nasal route; particularly, no study has compared the use of HFNC with that of COT at similar F_IO₂ for patients who have high-risk factors of desaturation during bronchoscopy examination.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomized controlled trial will be implemented in four academic centers in China. Patients who have high-risk factors including hypoxemia, hypercapnia, morbid obesity, and narrow airway will be enrolled to use HFNC or COT during bronchoscopy examination. In the HFNC group, the initial gas flow will be set at 50 L/min with a fraction of inspired oxygen (F_IO₂) at 0.45, if the patient tolerates, the flow can be increased to 60L/min at most, while in the COT group, oxygen flow will be set at 6 L/min via a conventional nasal cannula. After 5 min pre-oxygenation, the bronchoscope will be inserted via the nasal route. Vital signs, oxygenation (SpO₂), and transcutaneous CO₂ (PtCO₂) will be continuously monitored. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as SpO₂ < 90% for 10 s during bronchoscopy examination, and secondary outcomes include the need for treatment escalation and adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Hypoxia is a common complication of bronchoscopy, our study attempted to demonstrate that HFNC may reduce the probability of hypoxia during bronchoscopy in high-risk patients. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn/ : ChiCTR2100055038. Registered on 31 December 2021.

An Analysis of the Effect of Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation on Patients with Respiratory Failure Complicated by Diabetes Mellitus

Objective

To observe the clinical effectiveness of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with respiratory failure complicated by diabetes.

Methods

From May 2021 to May 2022, 90 patients with respiratory failure complicated by diabetes treated in our hospital were recruited and randomly assigned to receive either medication (control group) or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (study group), with 45 patients in each group. The clinical endpoint was therapeutic outcomes.

Results

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation resulted in significantly lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores versus medications (P < 0.05). Patients with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation showed better pulmonary function indices versus those with medications (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in arterial oxygen (PaO₂), carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO₂), and arterial oxygen pressure/inspired fraction of O₂ (PaO₂/FiO₂) between the two groups prior to the intervention (P > 0.05). However, patients in the study group had significantly elevated PaO₂ and PaO₂/FiO₂ and lower PaCO₂ levels than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Following the intervention, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation resulted in significantly lower inflammatory factor levels versus medications (P > 0.05). After the intervention, markedly better glucose control was observed in the study group versus the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in the control group was 2.38%, which was significantly lower than that of the control group (16.67) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation effectively suppresses the inflammatory response, improves the blood gas analysis index, and eliminates the negative emotions of patients, thereby maintaining hemodynamic stability and improving clinical efficacy with a better safety profile. Further studies are recommended prior to clinical promotion.

Course of illness and outcomes in older COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC: a retrospective analysis

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide and causes high mortality of elderly patients. High-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) is an oxygen delivery method for severely ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed the course of illness and outcomes in 110 elderly COVID-19 patients (≥65 years) treated with HFNC from 6 hospitals. 38 patients received HFNC (200 mmHg < PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 300 mmHg, early HFNC group), and 72 patients received HFNC (100 mmHg < PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg, late HFNC group). There were no significant differences of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and APECH II scores between early and late HFNC group on admission. Compared with the late HFNC group, patients in the early HFNC group had a lower likelihood of developing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), longer time from illness onset to severe ARDS and shorter duration of viral shedding after illness onset, as well as shorter lengths of ICU and hospital stay. 24 patients died during hospitalization, of whom 22 deaths (30.6%) were in the late HFNC group and 2 (5.3%) in the early HFNC group. The present study suggested that the outcomes were better in severely ill elderly patients with COVID-19 receiving early compared to late HFNC.

High-Flow Oxygen and High-Flow Air for Dyspnea in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer: A Pilot Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The effect of high-flow oxygen (HFOx) and high-flow air (HFAir) on dyspnea in nonhypoxemic patients is not known. We assessed the effect of HFOx, HFAir, low-flow oxygen (LFOx), and low-flow air (LFAir) on dyspnea.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

This double-blind, 4×4 crossover clinical trial enrolled hospitalized patients with cancer who were dyspneic at rest and nonhypoxemic (oxygen saturation >90% on room air). Patients were randomized to 10 minutes of HFOx, HFAir, LFOx, and LFAir in different orders. The flow rate was titrated between 20-60 L/minute in the high-flow interventions and 2 L/minute in the low-flow interventions. The primary outcome was dyspnea numeric rating scale (NRS) "now" where 0 = none and 10 = worst.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (mean age 51 years, 58% female) completed 55 interventions in a random order. The absolute change of dyspnea NRS between 0 and 10 minutes was -1.8 (SD 1.7) for HFOx, -1.8 (2.0) for HFAir, -0.5 (0.8) for LFOx, and - 0.6 (1.2) for LFAir. In mixed model analysis, HFOx provided greater dyspnea relief than LFOx (mean difference [95% confidence interval] -0.80 [-1.45, -0.15]; p = .02) and LFAir (-1.24 [-1.90, -0.57]; p < .001). HFAir also provided significantly greater dyspnea relief than LFOx (-0.95 [-1.61, -0.30]; p = .005) and LFAir (-1.39 [-2.05, -0.73]; p < .001). HFOx was well tolerated. Seven (54%) patients who tried all interventions blindly preferred HFOx and four (31%) preferred HFAir.

CONCLUSION

We found that HFOx and HFAir provided a rapid and clinically significant reduction of dyspnea at rest in hospitalized nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02932332).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This double-blind, 4×4 crossover trial examined the effect of oxygen or air delivered at high- or low-flow rates on dyspnea in hospitalized nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. High-flow oxygen and high-flow air were significantly better at reducing dyspnea than low-flow oxygen/air, supporting a role for palliation beyond oxygenation.

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.