Use High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Study

Hemodynamic and respiratory support in pulmonary embolism: a narrative review

Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially fatal disease, with a significant burden on health and survival. Right ventricular dysfunction and hemodynamic instability are considered two key determinants of mortality in pulmonary embolism, which can reach up to 65% in severe cases. Therefore, timely diagnosis and management are of paramount importance to ensure the best quality of care. However, hemodynamic and respiratory support, both major constituents of management in pulmonary embolism, associated with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, have been given little attention in recent years, in favor of other novel advances such as systemic thrombolysis or direct oral anticoagulants. Moreover, it has been implied that current recommendations regarding this supportive care lack enough robustness, further complicating the problem. In this review, we critically discuss and summarize the current literature concerning the hemodynamic and respiratory support in pulmonary embolism, including fluid therapy, diuretics, pharmacological support with vasopressors, inotropes and vasodilators, oxygen therapy and ventilation, and mechanical circulatory support with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and right ventricular assist devices, while also providing some insights into contemporary research gaps.

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.

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased.

PURPOSE

To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k = 11) or COT (k = 21).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized.

CONCLUSION

Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

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.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy as an emerging option for respiratory failure: the present and the future

Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been considered for decades as frontline treatment for acute or chronic respiratory failure. However, COT can be insufficient in severe hypoxaemia whereas NIV, although highly effective, is poorly tolerated by patients and its use requires a specific expertise. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an emerging technique, designed to provide oxygen at high flows with an optimal degree of heat and humidification, which is well tolerated and easy to use in all clinical settings. Physiologically, HFNC reduces the anatomical dead space and improves carbon dioxide wash-out, reduces the work of breathing, and generates a positive end-expiratory pressure and a constant fraction of inspired oxygen. Clinically, HFNC effectively reduces dyspnoea and improves oxygenation in respiratory failure from a variety of aetiologies, thus avoiding escalation to more invasive supports. In recent years it has been adopted to treat de novo hypoxaemic respiratory failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), postintubation hypoxaemia and used for palliative respiratory care. While the use of HFNC in acute respiratory failure is now routine as an alternative to COT and sometimes NIV, new potential applications in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (e.g. domiciliary treatment of patients with stable COPD), are currently under evaluation and will become a topic of great interest in the coming years.