Abstract
BackgroundOxygen therapy is essential in the management of patients with respiratory problem, including after endotracheal extubation. Conventional oxygen devices may be inadequate in patients requiring high inspiratory flow. HFNC has a growing place in the repertoire of respiratory therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency, tolerability, and outcome of HFNC in patients with respiratory failure and post-mechanical ventilation patients in comparison to NIV and conventional oxygen devices.ResultsIn case of respiratory failure patients, there was non-significant statistical difference between HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy and NIV, regarding the difference in ABGs, vital data, and dyspnea scores, at successive time points, except for PO2 after 30 min in patients received NIV, which was significantly higher. There was non-significant statistical difference between the three mentioned modalities of oxygen therapy regarding comfort and clinical outcome.In case of post-extubation patients, there was non-significant statistical difference between the HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy regarding clinical parameters, comfort and outcome.ConclusionsHFNC is comparable to conventional oxygen therapy in respiratory failure and post-extubation patients. HFNC is comparable to NIV in respiratory failure patients.
Highlights
Oxygen therapy is essential in the management of patients with respiratory problem, including after endotracheal extubation
In group A, regarding the difference in Arterial blood gases (ABG), vial data, Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (RDOS), and Borg dyspnea scale across the three subgroups, there was non-significant statistical difference between the high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), conventional oxygen therapy, and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) subgroups at successive time points, except for Partial pressure on oxygen (PO2) after 30 min in the NIV subgroup, which was significantly higher than the HFNC and conventional subgroups, but it is worth mentioning, that this statistically significant difference was not detected after 120 min and 24 h of therapy (Fig. 1)
There was statistically significant difference regarding PCOs between NIV and conventional subgroups, being higher in the NIV subgroup, but this difference was observed at the start of the oxygen therapy as well as after 30 min, 120 min, and 24 h from therapy (Tables 2, 3, and 4). (Figs. 2, 3 and 4)
Summary
Oxygen therapy is essential in the management of patients with respiratory problem, including after endotracheal extubation. Conventional oxygen devices may be inadequate in patients requiring high inspiratory flow. HFNC has a growing place in the repertoire of respiratory therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency, tolerability, and outcome of HFNC in patients with respiratory failure and post-mechanical ventilation patients in comparison to NIV and conventional oxygen devices. Oxygen therapy is essential in the management of patients who have a respiratory problem, including after endotracheal extubation. Oxygen supply via face mask with bag is routinely used in these patients, but this method may be inadequate in some patients, especially if they require a high inspiratory flow [4]. Oxygen delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has a growing place in the repertoire of respiratory therapies available in the intensive care environment [5].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
