A Survey of Feeding Practices During High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is used to deliver warm and humidified gases to patients in respiratory failure. A purported advantage of HFNC oxygen therapy is that it can allow for oral feeding while on the device, although few data support this practice. The purpose of this study was to identify practices and opinions with regard to feeding practices during HFNC oxygen therapy. METHODS: A survey related to the practice and opinions of feeding practices during HFNC oxygen therapy was developed and sent to respiratory therapists, speech-language pathologists, physicians, advanced practice providers, and registered dietitians. RESULTS: Respondents included 307 professionals from 14 different countries. Most respondents worked in an academic/teaching hospital (n = 174 [56.7%]) with patients ages ≥ 18 years (n = 282 [91.9%]). Most respondents stated that their institution did not have a specific feeding protocol for HFNC oxygen therapy (n = 246 [80.4%]) and felt that patients could have an oral diet during HFNC oxygen therapy if not in imminent danger of being intubated (n = 264 [86.3%]). Fewer than half of the respondents felt that patients should have a bedside/clinical swallow examination before eating and/or drinking during HFNC oxygen therapy (n = 143 [46.7%]). By profession, most physicians/advanced practice providers (n = 67 [59.3%]), respiratory therapists (n = 37 [62.7%]) and half of the registered dietitians (n = 16 [50%]) felt that bedside/clinical swallow examinations were unnecessary before eating and/or drinking with HFNC, but speech-language pathologists were in favor (n = 77 [75.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Most facilities did not have a protocol to guide feeding practices when HFNC oxygen therapy is used. Most clinicians felt that an oral diet is safe for stable patients not in danger of being intubated. In general, speech-language pathologists felt that patients on HFNC oxygen therapy should undergo a bedside/clinical swallow examination before eating and/or drinking.

Evaluation of a Closed Suction System With Integrated Tube-Scraping Technology.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal tube (ETT) scraping or sweeping refers to mucus removal from an ETT that can increase airway resistance. The study objective was to evaluate the effect of ETT scraping on the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first successful spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), duration of hospital stay, and occurrence of ventilator-associated events (VAEs). METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized clinical trial of adult subjects intubated between October 2019-October 2021. Subjects were randomly assigned to either ETT suctioning via a standard in-line suction catheter (control group) or ETT suctioning and scraping via a suction catheter with balloon-sweeping technology (experimental group). Airway suctioning was performed as clinically indicated, and the ETT was scraped every time a respiratory therapist suctioned the subject. The study outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first successful SBT, hospital length of stay, and VAE rate. Intent-to-treat statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 272 randomized subjects, the median age was 63 (interquartile range [IQR] 52-73) y; 143 (53%) were males, and 154 (57%) had a primary diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. There were no significant differences between the groups in median duration (h) of mechanical ventilation (72 [37-187] vs 70.6 [37-148], P = .58). There was no significant difference between the study groups in median time (h) to the first successful SBT (46.7 [IQR 30-87] vs 45.7 [IQR 27-95], P = .81), length of hospital stay (P = .76), the incidences of ventilator-associated conditions (P = .13), or infection-related ventilator-associated complications (P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: ETT suctioning plus scraping, compared to ETT suctioning alone, did not significantly improve the duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first successful SBT, length of hospital stay, and VAEs. These study findings do not support the routine use of ETT scraping for mechanically ventilated patients.