High-flow oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation: a randomised physiological crossover study of alveolar recruitment in acute respiratory failure

Abstract

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has recently shown clinical benefits in hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) patients, while the value of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) remains debated. The primary end-point was to compare alveolar recruitment using global end-expiratory electrical lung impedance (EELI) between HFNC and NIV. Secondary end-points compared regional EELI, lung volumes (global and regional tidal volume variation (VT)), respiratory parameters, haemodynamic tolerance, dyspnoea and patient comfort between HFNC and NIV, relative to face mask (FM).A prospective randomised crossover physiological study was conducted in patients with hypoxaemic ARF due to pneumonia. They received alternately HFNC, NIV and FM.16 patients were included. Global EELI was 4083 with NIV and 2921 with HFNC (p=0.4). Compared to FM, NIV and HFNC significantly increased global EELI by 1810.5 (95% CI 857–2646) and 826 (95% CI 399.5–2361), respectively. Global and regional VT increased significantly with NIV compared to HFNC or FM, but not between HFNC and FM. NIV yielded a significantly higher pulse oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen fraction ratio compared to HFNC (p=0.03). No significant difference was observed between HFNC, NIV and FM for dyspnoea. Patient comfort score with FM was not significantly different than with HFNC (p=0.1), but was lower with NIV (p=0.001).This study suggests a potential benefit of HFNC and NIV on alveolar recruitment in patients with hypoxaemic ARF. In contrast with HFNC, NIV increased lung volumes, which may contribute to overdistension and its potentially deleterious effect in these patients.