Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (NIV)

Norbert Schwabbauer, Björn Berg, Gunnar Blumenstock, Michael Haap, Jürgen Hetzel, Reimer Riessen, Norbert Schwabbauer, Björn Berg, Gunnar Blumenstock, Michael Haap, Jürgen Hetzel, Reimer Riessen

Abstract

Background: Aim of the study was to compare the short-term effects of oxygen therapy via a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on functional and subjective respiratory parameters in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure in comparison to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard treatment via a Venturi mask.

Methods: Fourteen patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure were treated with HFNC (FiO2 0.6, gas flow 55 l/min), NIV (FiO2 0.6, PEEP 5 cm H2O Hg, tidal volume 6-8 ml/kg ideal body weight,) and Venturi mask (FiO2 0.6, oxygen flow 15 l/min,) in a randomized order for 30 min each. Data collection included objective respiratory and circulatory parameters as well as a subjective rating of dyspnea and discomfort by the patients on a 10-point scale. In a final interview, all three methods were comparatively evaluated by each patient using a scale from 1 (=very good) to 6 (=failed) and the patients were asked to choose one method for further treatment.

Results: PaO2 was highest under NIV (129 ± 38 mmHg) compared to HFNC (101 ± 34 mmHg, p <0.01 vs. NIV) and VM (85 ± 21 mmHg, p <0.001 vs. NIV, p <0.01 vs. HFNC, ANOVA). All other functional parameters showed no relevant differences. In contrast, dyspnea was significantly better using a HFNC (2.9 ± 2.1, 10-point Borg scale) compared to NIV (5.0 ± 3.3, p <0.05), whereas dyspnea rating under HFNC and VM (3.3 ± 2.3) was not significantly different. A similar pattern was found when patients rated their overall discomfort on the 10 point scale: HFNC 2.7 ± 1.8, VM 3.1 ± 2.8 (ns vs. HFNC), NIV 5.4 ± 3.1 (p <0.05 vs. HFNC). In the final evaluation patients gave the best ratings to HFNC 2.3 ± 1.4, followed by VM 3.2 ± 1.7 (ns vs. HFNC) and NIV 4.5 ± 1.7 (p <0.01 vs. HFNC and p <0.05 vs. VM). For further treatment 10 patients chose HFNC, three VM and one NIV.

Conclusions: In hypoxic respiratory failure HFNC offers a good balance between oxygenation and comfort compared to NIV and Venturi mask and seems to be well tolerated by patients.

Trial registration: GERMAN CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTER: DRKS00005132.

Keywords: High-flow nasal cannula; Non-invasive ventilation; Oxygen; Respiratory failure; Venturi mask.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart. During the intervention patients were treated in a randomized order with either high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), Venturi-mask (VM) or with none - invasive ventilation (NIV).

References

    1. O'Driscoll BR, Howard LS, Davison AG. BTS guideline for emergency oxygen use in adult patients. Thorax. 2008;63(Suppl 6):vi1–vi68.
    1. Armstrong JAM, Guleria A, Girling K. Evaluation of gas exchange deficit in the critically ill. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2007;7(4):131–134.
    1. Kallstrom TJ. AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: oxygen therapy for adults in the acute care facility–2002 revision & update. Respir Care. 2002;47(6):717–720.
    1. El Khatib MF. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy during hypoxemic respiratory failure. Respir Care. 2012;57(10):1696–1698.
    1. Wagstaff TA, Soni N. Performance of six types of oxygen delivery devices at varying respiratory rates. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(5):492–503.
    1. Sim MA, Dean P, Kinsella J, Black R, Carter R, Hughes M. Performance of oxygen delivery devices when the breathing pattern of respiratory failure is simulated. Anaesthesia. 2008;63(9):938–940.
    1. Corley A, Caruana LR, Barnett AG, Tronstad O, Fraser JF. Oxygen delivery through high-flow nasal cannulae increase end-expiratory lung volume and reduce respiratory rate in post-cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107(6):998–1004.
    1. Cuquemelle E, Pham T, Papon JF, Louis B, Danin PE, Brochard L. Heated and humidified high-flow oxygen therapy reduces discomfort during hypoxemic respiratory failure. Respir Care. 2012;57(10):1571–1577.
    1. Chidekel A, Zhu Y, Wang J, Mosko JJ, Rodriguez E, Shaffer TH. The effects of gas humidification with high-flow nasal cannula on cultured human airway epithelial cells. Pulm Med. 2012;2012:380686.
    1. Ricard JD. High flow nasal oxygen in acute respiratory failure. Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(7):836–841.
    1. Lenglet H, Sztrymf B, Leroy C, Brun P, Dreyfuss D, Ricard JD. Humidified high flow nasal oxygen during respiratory failure in the emergency department: feasibility and efficacy. Respir Care. 2012;57(11):1873–1878.
    1. Bello G, De Pascale G, Antonelli M. Noninvasive ventilation: practical advice. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013;19(1):1–8.
    1. Ferrer M, Esquinas A, Leon M, Gonzalez G, Alarcon A, Torres A. Noninvasive ventilation in severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168(12):1438–1444.
    1. Schonhofer B, Kuhlen R, Neumann P, Westhoff M, Berndt C, Sitter H. Non-invasive ventilation as treatment for acute respiratory insufficiency. Essentials from the new S3 guidelines. Anaesthesist. 2008;57(11):1091–1102.
    1. Dysart K, Miller TL, Wolfson MR, Shaffer TH. Research in high flow therapy: mechanisms of action. Respir Med. 2009;103(10):1400–1405.
    1. Groves N, Tobin A. High flow nasal oxygen generates positive airway pressure in adult volunteers. Aust Crit Care. 2007;20(4):126–131.
    1. Riera J, Perez P, Cortes J, Roca O, Masclans JR, Rello J. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula and body position on end-expiratory lung volume: a cohort study using electrical impedance tomography. Respir Care. 2013;58(4):589–596.
    1. Roca O, Riera J, Torres F, Masclans JR. High-flow oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure. Respir Care. 2010;55(4):408–413.
    1. Sztrymf B, Messika J, Mayot T, Lenglet H, Dreyfuss D, Ricard JD. Impact of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy on intensive care unit patients with acute respiratory failure: a prospective observational study. J Crit Care. 2012;27(3):324–13.
    1. Sztrymf B, Messika J, Bertrand F, Hurel D, Leon R, Dreyfuss D, Ricard JD. Beneficial effects of humidified high flow nasal oxygen in critical care patients: a prospective pilot study. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(11):1780–1786.
    1. Rello J, Perez M, Roca O, Poulakou G, Souto J, Laborda C, Balcells J, Serra J, Masclans JR. High-flow nasal therapy in adults with severe acute respiratory infection: a cohort study in patients with 2009 influenza A/H1N1v. J Crit Care. 2012;27(5):434–439.
    1. Chanques G, Constantin JM, Sauter M, Jung B, Sebbane M, Verzilli D, Lefrant JY, Jaber S. Discomfort associated with underhumidified high-flow oxygen therapy in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(6):996–1003.
    1. Razlaf P, Pabst D, Mohr M, Kessler T, Wiewrodt R, Stelljes M, Reinecke H, Waltenberger J, Berdel WE, Lebiedz P. Non-invasive ventilation in immunosuppressed patients with pneumonia and extrapulmonary sepsis. Respir Med. 2012;106(11):1509–1516.
    1. Bello G, De Pascale G, Antonelli M. Noninvasive ventilation for the immunocompromised patient: always appropriate? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012;18(1):54–60.
    1. Nava S, Ferrer M, Esquinas A, Scala R, Groff P, Cosentini R, Guido D, Lin CH, Cuomo AM, Grassi M. Palliative use of non-invasive ventilation in end-of-life patients with solid tumours: a randomised feasibility trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):219–227.
    1. Altemeier WA, Sinclair SE. Hyperoxia in the intensive care unit: why more is not always better. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007;13(1):73–78.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj