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

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula at different flow rates on diaphragmatic function in subjects recovering from an acute exacerbation of COPD: a physiological prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is widely employed as the initial treatment for patients with chronic acute exacerbation of obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Nevertheless, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been increasingly utilized and investigated to mitigate the issues associated with NIV. Flow rate may play a significant role in diaphragmatic function among subjects recovering from AECOPD. Based on these observations, we conducted a physiological study to assess the impact of HFNC therapy on diaphragmatic function, as measured by US, respiratory rate (RR), gas exchange, and patient comfort at various flow rates.

METHODS

A prospective physiological pilot study enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of AECOPD who required NIV for more than 24 h. After stabilization, these subjects underwent a 30-min trial using NIV and HFNC at different sequential flow rates (30-60 L/min). At the end of each trial, diaphragmatic displacement (DD, cm) and diaphragmatic thickness fraction (DTF, %) were measured using ultrasound. Additionally, other physiological variables, such as RR, gas exchange, and patient comfort, were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were included in the study. DD was no different among trials (p = 0.753). DTF (%) was significantly lower with HFNC-30 L/min compared to HFNC-50 and 60 L/min (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were found in arterial pH and PaCO2 at discontinuation of NIV and at the end of HFNC trials (p > 0.050). During HFNC trials, RR remained unchanged without statistically significant differences (p = 0.611). However, we observed that HFNC improved comfort compared to NIV (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Interestingly, HFNC at 30 and 40 L/min showed greater comfort during trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects recovering from AECOPD and receiving HFNC, flows above 40 L/min may not offer additional benefits in terms of comfort and decreased respiratory effort. HFNC could be a suitable alternative to COT during breaks off NIV.

Effectiveness, Adherence and Safety of Home High Flow Nasal Cannula in Chronic Respiratory Disease and Respiratory Insufficiency: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of home high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for the treatment of chronic respiratory failure in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) has not been summarized. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness, adherence, and safety of HFNC in the long-term treatment of patients with chronic respiratory diseases and respiratory failure.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. PubMed, Web of science, and SCOPUS were search up to August 2023. Long-term HFNC studies (≥4 weeks) reporting dyspnea; exacerbations, hospitalizations; peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), comfort; patient experience, health-related quality of life or partial pressure of carbon dioxide (paCO2) were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles (701 patients) based on 10 studies were selected: randomized control trials (n=3), randomized crossover trials (n=2), crossover (n=3) and retrospective (n=2) studies. COPD (n=6), bronchiectasis (n=2), COPD/bronchiectasis (n=1) and ILD (n=1) were the underlined CRDs. HFNC reduced exacerbations when compared to usual care/home respiratory therapies (n=6). Quality of life outcomes were also in favor of HFNC in patients with COPD and bronchiectasis (n=6). HFNC had significant effects on hospitalizations, paCO2, and lung function. Adherence ranged from 5.2 to 8.6h/day (n=5). Three studies reported no events, 3 non-serious events and 2 no differences compared with other home respiratory therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC seems more effective than usual care or other home respiratory therapies in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life in patients with COPD and bronchiectasis, while presenting good adherence and being safe. Its apparently superior effectiveness needs to be better studied in future real-world pragmatic trials.

Comparison of Conventional Oxygen Therapy With High-Flow Nasal Oxygenation in the Management of Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

Introduction: The effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure (RF) remains controversial. The current study compared the effectiveness of HFNO in patients with hypercapnic RF with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

Objectives: The primary objective was to compare changes in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) between those receiving COT and HFNO. The secondary objectives were to compare changes in the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiratory rate (RR), serum bicarbonate level, base excess, lactate level, and incidence of the need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and mechanical ventilation (MV).

Methods: We recruited 30 patients with mild to moderate hypercapnic RF in the HFNO group, and data of 30 patients from historical controls, who matched the inclusion criteria, were obtained from medical records for comparison (COT group). The study was terminated after two hours, and patients were managed per the existing protocol after that. Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis was repeated at the baseline, first, second, and third hours.

Results: In the COT group, the mean RR at the baseline, first, second, and third hours was 24.5 ± 2.61, 24.9 ± 3.03, 26.03 ± 3.4, and 22.90 ± 1.86, whereas, in the HFNO group, it was 25.93 ± 3.91, 23.00 ± 3.54, 22.50 ± 3.38, and 21.90 ± 3.57, respectively. The mean PaCO2 in the COT vs. HFNO groups was 54.45 ± 5.83 vs. 62.22 ± 9.15, 57.74 ± 6.05 vs. 58.65 ± 10.43, 60.79 ± 7.48 vs. 60.41 ± 11.24, and 55.23 ± 6.63 vs. 56.95 ± 10.31. The mean SpO2 in the COT group at these points of time was 94.50 ± 1.46, 95.4 ± 1.28, 96.10 ± 1.84, and 97.53 ± 2.05, whereas, in the HFNO group, it was 95.40 ± 2.55, 98.63 ± 1.43, 99.00 ± 1.66, and 99.50 ± 1.31, respectively. The patients who needed NIV after the study period were 50% and 36.67% in the COT and HFNO groups, respectively.

Conclusions: There was no change in PaCO2 levels with HFNO, but there was a significant improvement in SpO2 and PaO2 levels and a decreased RR. Following the termination of the study protocol, more patients in the COT group needed NIV than those in the HFNO group.