Recent advances in the use of high flow nasal oxygen therapies

Effect of high flow nasal oxygen on inspiratory effort of patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and do not intubate orders

High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is recommended as a first-line respiratory support during acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) and represents a proportionate treatment option for patients with do not intubate (DNI) orders. The aim of the study is to assess the effect of HFNO on inspiratory effort as assessed by esophageal manometry in a population of DNI patients suffering from AHRF. Patients with AHRF and DNI orders admitted to Respiratory intermediate Care Unit between January 1st, 2018 and May 31st, 2023 to receive HFNO and subjected to esophageal manometry were enrolled. Esophageal pressure swing (ΔPes), clinical variables before and after 2 h of HFNO and clinical outcome (including HFNO failure) were collected and compared as appropriate. The change in physiological and clinical parameters according to the intensity of baseline breathing effort was assessed and the correlation between baseline ΔPes values and the relative change in breathing effort and clinical variables after 2 h of HFNO was explored. Eighty-two consecutive patients were enrolled according to sample size calculation. Two hours after HFNO start, patients presented significant improvement in ΔPes (12 VS 16 cmH2O, p < 0.0001), respiratory rate (RR) (22 VS 28 bpm, p < 0.0001), PaO2/FiO2 (133 VS 126 mmHg, p < 0.0001), Heart rate, Acidosis, Consciousness, Oxygenation and respiratory rate (HACOR) score, (4 VS 6, p < 0.0001), Respiratory rate Oxygenation (ROX) index (8.5 VS 6.1, p < 0.0001) and BORG (1 VS 4, p < 000.1). Patients with baseline ΔPes below 20 cmH2O where those who improved all the explored variables, while patients with baseline ΔPes above 30 cmH2O did not report significant changes in physiological or clinical features. A significant correlation was found between baseline ΔPes values and after 2 h of HFNO (R2 = 0.9, p < 0.0001). ΔPes change 2 h after HFNO significantly correlated with change in BORG (p < 0.0001), ROX index (p < 0.0001), HACOR score (p < 0.001) and RR (p < 0.001). In DNI patients with AHRF, HFNO was effective in reducing breathing effort and improving respiratory and clinical variables only for those patients with not excessive inspiratory effort.

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).