High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation as Initial Treatment in Acute Hypoxia: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

IMPORTANCE: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypoxemia often have mixed or uncertain causes of respiratory failure. The optimal treatment for such patients is unclear. Both high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with HFNC versus NIV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC or NIV within 24 hours of arrival to the University of Michigan adult ED from January 2018 to December 2022. We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving NIV. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-d mortality, ventilator-free days, noninvasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a win ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients were included. Seven hundred twenty-six (62.9%) received HFNC and 428 (37.1%) received NIV. We propensity score matched 668 of 1154 (57.9%) patients. Patients on NIV versus HFNC had lower 28-day mortality (16.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.033) and required noninvasive treatment for fewer hours (median 7.5 vs. 13.5, p < 0.001), but had no difference in ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range]: 28 [26, 28] vs. 28 [10.5, 28], p = 0.199). Win ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored NIV (1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with NIV compared with HFNC was associated with lower mortality and fewer composite major pulmonary adverse events calculated using a win ratio. These findings underscore the need for randomized controlled trials to further understand the impact of noninvasive respiratory support strategies.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy for adult patients after cardiac surgery: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy constitutes a crucial element of post-cardiac operative care. The study assessed the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in comparison to conventional oxygen therapy (COT). OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC in comparison to COT for adult patients following cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception until April 18, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in adult patients following cardiac surgery. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included nine studies, consisting of eight RCTs and one crossover study. Compared with COT, HFNC could reduce the need for escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.93, P = 0.02), decrease arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) levels (MD -3.14, 95% CI: -4.90 to -1.39, P<0.001), and increase forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) levels (MD 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the HFNC and COT groups in terms of mortality, intubation rate, respiratory rate, heart rate, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), forced vital capacity, and complications of atrial fibrillation and delirium. CONCLUSION: Compared with COT, HFNC could decrease the need for escalation of respiratory support, lower PaCO2 levels, and elevate FEV1 levels in patients following cardiac surgery.

Comparison of preoxygenation using a tight facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and a standard nasal cannula - a volunteer, randomised, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Preoxygenation before anaesthesia induction is routinely performed via a tight-fitting facemask or humidified high-flow nasal oxygen. We hypothesised that effective preoxygenation, assessed by end-tidal oxygen (EtO 2 ) levels, can also be performed via a standard nasal cannula. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of preoxygenation between a traditional facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and a standard nasal cannula. DESIGN: A volunteer, randomised, crossover study. SETTING: Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm. The study was conducted between 2 May and 31 May 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty cardiopulmonary healthy volunteers aged 25-65 years with a BMI <30. INTERVENTIONS: Preoxygenation using a traditional facemask, humidified high-flow nasal oxygen and standard nasal cannula. Volunteers were preoxygenated with all three methods, at various flow rates (10-50 l min -1 ), with open and closed mouths and during vital capacity manoeuvres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The study's primary outcome compared the efficacy after 3 min of preoxygenation, assessed by EtO 2 levels, between the three methods and various flow rates of preoxygenation. RESULTS: Three methods generated higher EtO 2 levels than others: (i) facemask preoxygenation using normal breathing, (ii) humidified high-flow nasal oxygen, closed-mouth breathing, at 50 l min -1 and (iii) standard nasal cannula, closed-mouth breathing, at 50 l min -1 , and expressed as means (SD): 90% (3), 90% (6) and 88% (5), respectively. Preoxygenation efficacy was greater via the bi-nasal cannulae using closed vs. open mouth breathing as well as with 3 min of normal breathing vs. eight vital capacity breaths. Preoxygenation with a facemask and humidified high-flow nasal oxygen was more comfortable than a standard nasal cannula. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of preoxygenation using a standard nasal cannula at high flow rates is no different to clinically used methods today. The standard nasal cannula provides less comfort but is highly effective and could be an option when alternative methods are unavailable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05839665.

Can the ROX index predict high-flow nasal cannula failure in children under 2 with lower respiratory tract infection?

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the ROX index's accuracy in predicting the success or failure of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in children under 2 years with acute respiratory failure (ARF) from lower respiratory tract infections. METHODS: From January 2018 to 2021 we conducted this multicenter retrospective cohort study, which included patients aged 2-24 months. We aimed to assess HFNC therapy outcomes as either success or failure. The analysis covered patient demographics, diagnoses, vital signs, and ROX index values at intervals from 0 to 48 h after initiating HFNC. We used bivariate analysis, repeated measures ANOVA, multivariate logistic regression, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The study involved 529 patients from six centers, with 198 females (37%) and a median age of 9 months (IQR: 3-15 months). HFNC therapy failed in 38% of cases. We observed significant variability in failure rates across different centers and physicians (p < .001). The ROX index was significantly associated with HFNC outcomes at all time points, showing an increasing trend in success cases over time (p < .001), but not in HFNC failure cases. Its predictive ability is limited, with AUC-ROC values ranging from 0.56 at the start to 0.67 at 48 h. CONCLUSION: While the ROX index is associated with HFNC outcomes in children under 2 years, its predictive ability is modest, impacted by significant variability among patients, physicians, and centers. These findings emphasize the need for more reliable predictive tools for HFNC therapy in this patient population.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Following Extubation on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation of critically ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours. Results: Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

The application of a surgical face mask over different oxygen delivery devices; a crossover study of measured end-tidal oxygen concentrations.

BACKGROUND: The application of a surgical face mask over oxygen delivery devices is now a widespread recommendation in the setting of the Coronavirus disease pandemic. This addition is designed to reduce droplet spread, but this also changes the nature of these devices, and may alter the amount of oxygen delivered to a patient. This research investigated how placing a surgical face mask over both a simple plastic mask ("Hudson mask") and nasal cannula altered the concentration of available oxygen measured at the nares. METHODS: We measured the inspired and end-tidal oxygen concentrations of five healthy non-smoking volunteers. Oxygen was delivered via nasal cannula and also a simple plastic face mask, at flow rates of 2, 4, 6 and 8 l per minute, with and without an overlying surgical face mask. RESULTS: Adding a surgical mask over nasal cannula caused an appreciable rise in the end-tidal oxygen concentrations at all the measured oxygen flow rates 2, 4, 6, 8 L/minute. With the Hudson mask, there was a rise in oxygen concentration at 4 and 6 L/minute. For example, at a flow rate of 4 l/min via nasal cannula, available oxygen concentration increased from 24 to 36%, and via the Hudson mask the concentration rose from 27 to 38%. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a surgical face mask over both nasal cannula and a Hudson mask resulted in an increased available oxygen concentration. This may be valuable where more advanced oxygen devices are not available, or alternatively providing adequate supplemental oxygen at lower flow rates and thus making critical savings in oxygen usage.

Baricitinibe para tratamento de pacientes adultos com Covid-19 hospitalizados que necessitam de oxigênio por máscara ou cateter nasal, ou que necessitam de alto fluxo de oxigênio ou ventilação não invasiva / Baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalized adult patients with Covid-19 who require oxygen by mask or nasal catheter, or who require high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation

INTRODUÇÃO: O baricitinbe, um imunomodulador que atua sobre a atividade da IL-6 (citocina pró-inflamatória), pode representar uma estratégia para o tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19 que tiveram comprometimento pulmonar devido a resposta hiperinflamátoria desencadeada pela tempestade de citocinas característica na infecção causada pelo vírus SARS-COV2. TECNOLOGIA: Baricitinibe (Olumiant®). EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: Para seleção das evidências clínicas foi conduzida uma revisão sistemática da literatura em busca de ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR), estudos observacionais (mundo real) e revisões sistemáticas que avaliassem os efeitos do baricitinibe como monoterapia ou associado aos cuidados usuais - definidos aqui como 'terapia padrão' (corticoesteróides sistêmicos, anticoagulantes, antimicrobianos/antivirais) no tratamento de pacientes adultos com COVID-19, hospitalizados e que necessitam de suplementação de oxigênio (máscara ou cateter nasal, alto fluxo de oxigênio ou ventilação não invasiva). As buscas eletrônicas foram realizadas nas bases de dados: the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Pubmed, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), EMBASE e Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). O risco de viés dos estudos primários incluídos foi avaliado pelas ferramentas Risk of Bias versão 2 da Cochrane (para ECR) ou ROBINS-I (para estudos observacionais), e a qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada pela ferramenta AMSTAR-2. A qualidade da evidência foi avaliada pelo sistema GRADE. Seis artigos foram incluídos na presente revisão, sendo dois deles referentes a um ensaio clínico randomizado (ECR), um estudo observacional e três revisões sistemáticas com meta-análise (RSMA), sendo uma

Pre-oxygenation with facemask oxygen vs high-flow nasal oxygen vs high-flow nasal oxygen plus mouthpiece: a randomised controlled trial.

High-flow nasal oxygen used before and during apnoea prolongs time to desaturation at induction of anaesthesia. It is unclear how much oxygenation before apnoea prolongs this time. We randomly allocated 84 participants to 3 minutes of pre-oxygenation by one of three methods: 15 l.min-1 by facemask; 50 l.min-1 by high-flow nasal cannulae only; or 50 l.min-1 by high-flow nasal cannulae plus 15 l.min-1 by mouthpiece. We then anaesthetised and intubated the trachea of 79 participants and waited for oxygen saturation to fall to 92%. Median (IQR [range]) times to desaturate to 92% after pre-oxygenation with facemask oxygen, high-flow nasal oxygen only and high-flow nasal oxygen with mouthpiece, were: 309 (208-417 [107-544]) s; 344 (250-393 [194-585]) s; and 386 (328-498 [182-852]) s, respectively, p = 0.014. Time to desaturation after facemask pre-oxygenation was shorter than after combined nasal and mouthpiece pre-oxygenation, p = 0.006. We could not statistically distinguish high-flow nasal oxygen without mouthpiece from the other two groups for this outcome. Median (IQR [range]) arterial oxygen partial pressure after 3 minutes of pre-oxygenation by facemask, nasal cannulae and nasal cannulae plus mouthpiece, was: 49 (36-61 [24-66]) kPa; 57 (48-62 [30-69]) kPa; and 61 (55-64 [36-72]) kPa, respectively, p = 0.003. Oxygen partial pressure after 3 minutes of pre-oxygenation with nasal and mouthpiece combination was greater than after facemask pre-oxygenation, p = 0.002, and after high-flow nasal oxygen alone, p = 0.016. We did not reject the null hypothesis for the pairwise comparison of facemask pre-oxygenation and high-flow nasal pre-oxygenation, p = 0.14.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of high-flow oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy has not been established in the setting of severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy on need for endotracheal intubation and clinical recovery in severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted in emergency and intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Colombia. A total of 220 adults with respiratory distress and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of less than 200 due to COVID-19 were randomized from August 2020 to January 2021, with last follow-up on February 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula (n = 109) or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 111). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The co-primary outcomes were need for intubation and time to clinical recovery until day 28 as assessed by a 7-category ordinal scale (range, 1-7, with higher scores indicating a worse condition). Effects of treatments were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for hypoxemia severity, age, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 220 randomized patients, 199 were included in the analysis (median age, 60 years; n = 65 women [32.7%]). Intubation occurred in 34 (34.3%) randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy and in 51 (51.0%) randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96; P = .03). The median time to clinical recovery within 28 days was 11 (IQR, 9-14) days in patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy vs 14 (IQR, 11-19) days in those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00-1.92; P = .047). Suspected bacterial pneumonia occurred in 13 patients (13.1%) randomized to high-flow oxygen and in 17 (17.0%) of those randomized to conventional oxygen therapy, while bacteremia was detected in 7 (7.1%) vs 11 (11.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe COVID-19, use of high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula significantly decreased need for mechanical ventilation support and time to clinical recovery compared with conventional low-flow oxygen therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04609462.

A randomized crossover pilot study comparing the efficacy of an auto-demand oxygen delivery system with that of a conventional demand oxygen delivery system in patients with chronic respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: : When using portable oxygen, a demand oxygen delivery system (DODS), which senses the beginning of inhalation and delivers a bolus of oxygen, is often used. However, conventional DODS may not supply sufficient oxygen when reduced tidal flow fails to trigger the flow sensor. Recently, "auto-DODS," which detects the negative pressure of inhalation and switches among 3 trigger sensitivity levels (standard, high, and extra high), has been developed to improve the efficacy of oxygenation. An auto-DODS can also supply pulsed-flow oxygen when it detects apnea, whereas a conventional DODS has only standard sensitivity. This randomized, open-label, crossover pilot study compared the performance of an auto-DODS with that of a conventional DODS. METHODS: : We recruited patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial pneumonia receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Interventions were performed on 2 different days for each participant. On each day, an auto-DODS or a conventional DODS were tested at rest for 30 minutes and during the 6-minute walk test. The primary outcome was mean oxygen saturation (SpO2). Secondary outcomes were the ratios of time for each sensitivity level and pulsed-flow oxygen when using the auto-DODS, total time desaturated below SpO2 90%, percentage of time desaturated below SpO2 90%, minimum SpO2, mean and maximum pulse rate, six-minute walk distance, recovery time after 6-minute walk test, modified Borg scale, comfort, and discomfort index. RESULTS: : When using the auto-DODS at rest, a high or extra high sensitivity level was observed in addition to standard sensitivity in 6 of 8 participants. During the 6-minute walk test, only standard sensitivity was observed in 6 participants. Mean SpO2 differences between the auto-DODS and conventional DODS at rest and during the 6-minute walk test were -0.6 [-4.5, 3.4] and 0.0 [-2.5, 2.5] ([95% confidence interval]), respectively, neither of which were significant (P = .73 and P = .99). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. There were no adverse events when using the auto-DODS. CONCLUSIONS: : This study showed that the auto-DODS did not show superiority in oxygenation either at rest or during exercise compared to a conventional DODS. The auto-DODS was shown to supply oxygen safely and detect inhalations with various trigger sensitivities.

Respiratory Drive in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: Modulation by High-flow Nasal Cannula.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and pilot clinical data suggest that spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and septic shock may present increased respiratory drive and effort, even in the absence of pulmonary infection. The study hypothesis was that respiratory drive and effort may be increased in septic patients and correlated with extrapulmonary determinant and that high-flow nasal cannula may modulate drive and effort. METHODS: Twenty-five nonintubated patients with extrapulmonary sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. Each patient underwent three consecutive steps: low-flow oxygen at baseline, high-flow nasal cannula, and then low-flow oxygen again. Arterial blood gases, esophageal pressure, and electrical impedance tomography data were recorded toward the end of each step. Respiratory effort was measured as the negative swing of esophageal pressure (ΔPes); drive was quantified as the change in esophageal pressure during the first 500 ms from start of inspiration (P0.5). Dynamic lung compliance was calculated as the tidal volume measured by electrical impedance tomography, divided by ΔPes. The results are presented as medians [25th to 75th percentile]. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (52%) were in septic shock. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 [4 to 9]. During low-flow oxygen at baseline, respiratory drive and effort were elevated and significantly correlated with arterial lactate (r = 0.46, P = 0.034) and inversely with dynamic lung compliance (r = -0.735, P < 0.001). Noninvasive support by high-flow nasal cannula induced a significant decrease of respiratory drive (P0.5: 6.0 [4.4 to 9.0] vs. 4.3 [3.5 to 6.6] vs. 6.6 [4.9 to 10.7] cm H2O, P < 0.001) and effort (ΔPes: 8.0 [6.0 to 11.5] vs. 5.5 [4.5 to 8.0] vs. 7.5 [6.0 to 12.6] cm H2O, P < 0.001). Oxygenation and arterial carbon dioxide levels remained stable during all study phases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sepsis and septic shock of extrapulmonary origin present elevated respiratory drive and effort, which can be effectively reduced by high-flow nasal cannula.

High flow versus conventional nasal cannula for oxygenation and ventilation maintenance during surgery with intravenous deep sedation by propofol: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The dead space washout and provision of some level of positive airway pressure by nasal high-flow (NHF) cannula could improve the efficiency of ventilation, oxygenation and maintenance of the upper airway in patients undergoing deep sedation. This study aimed to compare the incidences of events represented oxygenation and ventilation, i.e. desaturation and upper airway obstruction, and arterial blood gas (ABG) levels between using NHF cannula and conventional nasal cannula (NC2) during deep sedation of adult surgical patients. METHODS: In this prospective randomized single-blinded study, the patients who were 20-80 years old, ASA physical status of 1 to 3, scheduled for surgery under intravenous sedation (IVS) were included. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., NC2 or NHF groups. Propofol infusion was given to maintain deep sedation. The desaturation (SpO2 < 92%) and upper airway obstruction events (presence of snoring with paradoxical breathing) after application of NC2 or NHF were observed and collected. Other outcomes included interventions during IVS, such as jaw lifting or airway instrument insertion, mouth dryness, and post- ABG analyses were also collected and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients undergoing endovascular surgery were randomized into NC2 or NHF groups (18 in each group). No patients dropped out of the study. There were no significant differences in age, sex, ASA physical status, pre-sedation and pre-application of NC2 and NHF ABG analyses (PaO2, SaO2, pH, PaCO2, and PaO2/FiO2). NHF group had significantly lower in the incidence of desaturation [5 (27.78%) vs 13 (72.22%), p = 0.008], upper airway obstruction [4 (22.22%) vs 13 (72.22%), p = 0.003], and airway maneuver [6 (33.33%) vs 13 (72.22%), p = 0.019] than NC2 group. There were no differences in the ABG analyses after oxygen supplementation and no significant differences in mouth dryness between groups. CONCLUSION: The use of NHF cannula in patients undergoing endovascular surgery under deep sedation reduced desaturation events and required fewer airway interventions than NC2 with no difference in arterial blood gas analyses and mouth dryness.

Oxygenation strategies during flexible bronchoscopy: a review of the literature.

During flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) the arterial partial pressure of oxygen can drop, increasing the risk for respiratory failure. To avoid desaturation episodes during the procedure several oxygenation strategies have been proposed, including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). By a review of the current literature, we merely describe the clinical practice of oxygen therapies during FOB. We also conducted a pooled data analysis with respect to oxygenation outcomes, comparing HFNC with COT and NIV, separately. COT showed its benefits in patients undergoing FOB for broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) or brushing for cytology, in those with peripheral arterial oxyhemoglobin saturation < 93% prior to the procedure or affected by obstructive disorder. HFNC is preferable over COT in patients with mild to moderate acute respiratory failure (ARF) undergoing FOB, by improving oxygen saturation and decreasing the episodes of desaturation. On the opposite, CPAP and NIV guarantee improved oxygenation outcomes as compared to HFNC, and they should be preferred in patients with more severe hypoxemic ARF during FOB.