Use Of High-flow Nasal Oxygen Research Articles

New Treatment modality for Burn Injury Related ARDS : High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy in Major Burns.

Pulmonary insufficiency is the primary cause of death in cases of major burns accompanied by inhalation damage. It is important to consider the impact on the face and neck in flame burns. Early implementation of bronchial hygiene measures and oxygenation treatment in inhalation injury can reduce mortality. This case series presents the effects of high-flow nasal oxygen application on patient outcomes in major burns and inhalation injury. This report discusses three different patients. One patient, a 29-year-old male with 35% TBSA burns, received high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) treatment for inhalation injury on the sixth day after the trauma. After 72 hours of HFNO application, the patient's pulmonary symptoms improved. The second patient had 60% TBSA burns and developed respiratory distress symptoms on the fifth day after the trauma. After 7 days of HFNO application, all symptoms and findings of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were resolved. HFNO has used for the treatment of ARDS releated to major burn ( 60% of burned TBSA) 28 years-old patient and improvement was achived. The use of HFNO in pulmonary insufficiency among burn patients has not been reported previously. This series of patient cases demonstrates the successful application of HFNO in treating inhalation injury and burn-related ARDS. However, further clinical studies are necessary to increase its clinical utilization.

The Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients with ARDS Who Received High Flow Nasal Oxygen in Medical Wards Outside Intensive Care Units Under Supervision of Non-intensivists.

Objective: Efficacy of high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in COVID-19 patients who developed ARDS in medical wards is poorly studied. We aimed to investigate whether use of HFNO in wards outside intensive care unit under supervision of non-intensivists has clinical effects on acute respiratory failure and whether it reduces ICU workload. Methods: COVID 19 patients who received HFNO therapy for ARDS in medical wards of an academic hospital were analyzed retrospectively. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were successfully weaned from HFNO. Results: 43 patients ( 32 male, median age 61 [54-70] years) were investigated. 14 (33 %) patients weaned from HFNO and 29 (67%) patients failed HFNO and were tranferred to ICU. HFNO was applied in the group of HFNO with success with a median duration of 7 days (4-9) and in the failed group with median 3 days (2-5), p=0.002. Median SpO2 after HFNO was higher in patients with HFNO success compared to with HFNO failure [95 (94-97) vs 93 (92-95), p=0.015]. In the group of HFNO with success, there were more hypocapnic patients than in the group of HFNO with failure [19/29 (66 %) vs 3/14 (21%); p=0.015]. Logistic regression analysis indicated that patients with hypocapnia had 9.8 times the odds of having HFNO failure compared with patients with normocapnia.No patient died among the patients succeded HFNO however 90% of patients who transferred to ICU died. Conclusion: Use of HFNO for COVID-19 patients with ARDS at a non-critical setting seemed to be beneficial in avoiding intubation and reducing workload of ICU. However due to high mortality rate among the HFNO failed group, it would be better to be used undersupervision of intensivists and by skilled team.

A retrospective observational study to determine the role of High Flow Nasal Oxygen in terms of recovery, mortality and need for invasive ventilation in COVID-19 cases

Background: Hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19 is managed by conventional oxygen, High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), and invasive ventilation. Multiple studies have proven that using HFNO in the early stages of acute hypoxemia failure can lead to better outcomes and delay or avoidance of invasive ventilation. This observational study was conducted to further establish this hypothesis. Also, no difference was found in mortality rates between the usage of HFNO Conventional Oxygen Therapy. However, there are very limited studies comparing outcomes of HFNO and Invasive ventilation usage. Hence, this study was undertaken to gain insight into comparing HFNO and invasive ventilation. Materials and Methods: A retrospective data collection was performed from 06/05/2021 to 15/12/2021 after approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. The collection was performed at MMFHA Ratna Hospital, Pune. All Indoor patient department files of positive cases of COVID first wave (2020) and second wave (2021) were screened. Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction COVID-positive cases belonging to both genders, aged 18-100 years and where HFNO was part of management were selected, and data was extracted about socio-demographic data, clinical profile, and routine investigations advised, course of the patient in the hospital with respect to vital parameters, daily HFNO parameters, all the medications received, any other interventions if required, and the time points of taking patients off HFNO, the requirement of invasive ventilation, shifting out of Intensive Care Unit discharge, or death. Immunocompromised cancer patients and pregnant women were excluded. Outcomes were measured in terms of recovery, need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality. Results: Out of 700 cases screened, HFNO was used in 38 (5.4%) participants. The duration of HFNO ranged from less than one day to more than seven days. Of those 38, 30 (78.9%) received HFNO and 8 (21.05%) were shifted to mechanical ventilation. Out of these 30, eight (21.05%) expired on HFNO, eighteen (47.36%) were discharged, and four (10.52%) were shifted to another hospital on HFNO. All eight participants on mechanical invasive ventilation expired. Conclusions: In terms of recovery from HFNO use, discharge with a recovery rate was higher than mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was much lower in HFNO used participants (26 versus 8). All those on mechanical ventilation expired. HFNO can be a useful modality for oxygenation in COVID-19 patients. The exact role of HFNO in the trajectory of the management of hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 needs to be defined.

Flexible bronchoscopy insufflated and high-flow nasal oxygen pilot trial (BUFFALO protocol pilot trial)

BackgroundHypoxaemia occurs in approximately 30% of children during anaesthesia for flexible bronchoscopy. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) can prolong safe apnoea time and be used in children with abnormal airways. During flexible bronchoscopy, there is limited evidence if HFNO confers advantages over current standard practice in avoiding hypoxaemia. The aim is to investigate feasibility of HFNO use during anaesthesia for flexible bronchoscopy to reduce frequency of rescue oxygenation and hypoxaemia.MethodsBUFFALO is a bi-centre, unmasked, randomised controlled, parallel group, protocol for a pilot trial comparing HFNO techniques to standard practice during anaesthesia. Children (n = 81) aged > 37 weeks to 16 years presenting for elective bronchoscopy who fulfil inclusion but not exclusion criteria will be randomised prior to the procedure to HFNO or standard care oxygenation post induction of anaesthesia. Maintenance of anaesthesia with HFNO requires total venous anaesthesia (TIVA) and with standard, either inhalational or TIVA at discretion of anaesthetist in charge of the patient. Outcomes will include the feasibility of recruitment and adherence to trial procedures, acceptability of the intervention of the protocol and completion rates of data collection methods.DiscussionFindings of this trial will determine feasibility to plan for a larger multicentre randomised clinical trial and support the feasibility of the proposed study procedures.Trial registrationBUFFALO trial was registered with Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (TRN12621001635853) on 29 November 2021 and commenced recruitment in May 2022. https://www.anzctr.org.au/. The primary manuscript will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Advanced Respiratory Support Days as a Novel Marker of Mortality in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Emerging evidence suggests prolonged use of noninvasive respiratory support may increase mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome who require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Using a database of adults receiving ECMO for COVID-19, we calculated survival curves and multivariable Cox regression to determine the risk of death associated with pre-ECMO use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) days. We investigated the performance of a novel variable, advanced respiratory support days (composite of HFNO, NIV, and IMV days), on Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction (RESP) score. Subjects (N = 146) with increasing advanced respiratory support days (<5, 5-9, and ≥10) had a stepwise increase in 90 day mortality (32.2%, 57.7%, and 75.4%, respectively; p = 0.002). Ninety-day mortality was significantly higher in subjects (N = 121) receiving NIV >4 days (81.8% vs. 52.4%, p < 0.001). Each additional pre-ECMO advanced respiratory support day increased the odds of right ventricular failure (odds ratio [OR]: 1.066, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.002-1.135) and in-hospital mortality (1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.27). Substituting advanced respiratory support days for IMV days improved RESP score mortality prediction (area under the curve (AUC) or: 0.64 vs. 0.71). Pre-ECMO advanced respiratory support days were associated with increased 90 day mortality compared with IMV days alone. Adjusting the RESP score for advanced respiratory support days improved mortality prediction.

Pre-oxygenation with high-flow oxygen through the nasopharyngeal airway compared to facemask on carbon dioxide clearance in emergency adults: a prospective randomized non-blinded clinical trial.

Before tracheal intubation, it is essential to provide sufficient oxygen reserve for emergency patients with full stomachs. Recent studies have demonstrated that high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) effectively pre-oxygenates and prolongs apneic oxygenation during tracheal intubation. Despite its effectiveness, the use of HFNO remains controversial due to concerns regarding carbon dioxide clearance. The air leakage and unknown upper airway obstruction during HFNO therapy cause reduced oxygen flow above the vocal cords, possibly weaken the carbon dioxide clearance. Patients requiring emergency surgery who had fasted < 8h and not drunk < 2h were randomly assigned to the high-flow group, who received 100% oxygen at 30-60 L/min through nasopharyngeal airway (NPA), or the mask group, who received 100% oxygen at 8 L/min. PaO2 and PaCO2 were measured immediately before pre-oxygenation (T0), anesthesia induction (T1), tracheal intubation (T2), and mechanical ventilation (T3). The gastric antrum's cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured using ultrasound technology at T0, T1, and T3. Details of complications, including hypoxemia, reflux, nasopharyngeal bleeding, postoperative pulmonary infection, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and postoperative nasopharyngeal pain, were recorded. The primary outcomes were PaCO2 measured at T1, T2, and T3. The secondary outcomes included PaO2 at T1, T2, and T3, CSA at T1 and T3, and complications happened during this trial. Pre-oxygenation was administered by high-flow oxygen through NPA (n = 58) or facemask (n = 57) to 115 patients. The mean (SD) PaCO2 was 32.3 (6.7) mmHg in the high-flow group and 34.6 (5.2) mmHg in the mask group (P = 0.045) at T1, 45.0 (5.5) mmHg and 49.4 (4.6) mmHg (P < 0.001) at T2, and 47.9 (5.1) mmHg and 52.9 (4.6) mmHg (P < 0.001) at T3, respectively. The median ([IQR] [range]) PaO2 in the high-flow and mask groups was 404.5 (329.1-458.1 [159.8-552.9]) mmHg and 358.9 (274.0-413.3 [129.0-539.1]) mmHg (P = 0.007) at T1, 343.0 (251.6-428.7 [73.9-522.1]) mmHg and 258.3 (162.5-347.5 [56.0-481.0]) mmHg (P < 0.001) at T2, and 333.5 (229.9-411.4 [60.5-492.4]) mmHg and 149.8 (87.0-246.6 [51.2-447.5]) mmHg (P < 0.001) at T3, respectively. The CSA in the high-flow and mask groups was 371.9 (287.4-557.9 [129.0-991.2]) mm2 and 386.8 (292.0-537.3 [88.3-1651.7]) mm2 at T1 (P = 0.920) and 452.6 (343.7-618.4 [161.6-988.1]) mm2 and 385.6 (306.3-562.0 [105.5-922.9]) mm2 at T3 (P = 0.173), respectively. The number (proportion) of complications in the high-flow and mask groups is shown below: hypoxemia: 1 (1.7%) vs. 9 (15.8%, P = 0.019); reflux: 0 (0%) vs. 0 (0%); nasopharyngeal bleeding: 1 (1.7%) vs. 0 (0%, P = 1.000); pulmonary infection: 4 (6.9%) vs. 3 (5.3%, P = 1.000); PONV: 4 (6.9%) vs. 4 (7.0%, P = 1.000), and nasopharyngeal pain: 0 (0%) vs. 0 (0%). Compared to facemasks, pre-oxygenation with high-flow oxygen through NPA offers improved carbon dioxide clearance and enhanced oxygenation prior to tracheal intubation in patients undergoing emergency surgery, while the risk of gastric inflation had not been ruled out. This trial was registered prospectively at the Chinese Clinical Research Registry on 26/4/2022 (Registration number: ChiCTR2200059192).

Hypercarbia and high-flow nasal oxygen use during anaesthesia - risking a failure to thrive?

Prevention of arterial oxygen desaturation during anaesthesia with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has gained greater acceptance for a widening range of procedures. However, during HFNO use there remains the potential for development of significant anaesthesia-associated apnoea or hypoventilation and the possibility of hypercarbia, with harmful cardiovascular or neurological sequelae. The aim of this study was to determine whether any HFNO-related hypercarbia adverse incidents had been reported on webAIRS, an online database of adverse anaesthesia-related incidents. Two relevant reports were identified of complications due to marked hypercarbia during HFNO use to maintain oxygenation. In both reports, HFNO and total intravenous anaesthesia were used during endoscopic procedures through the upper airway. In both, the extent of hypoventilation went undetected during HFNO use. An ensuing cardiac arrest was reported in one report, ascribed to acute hypercarbia-induced exacerbation of the patient's pre-existing pulmonary hypertension. In the other report, hypercarbia led to a prolonged duration of decreased level of consciousness post procedure, requiring ventilatory support. During the search, an additional 11 reports of postoperative hypercarbia-associated sedation were identified, unrelated to HFNO. In these additional reports an extended duration of severe acute hypercarbia led to sedation or loss of consciousness, consistent with the known effects of hypercarbia on consciousness. These 13 reports highlight the potential dangers of unrecognised and untreated hypercarbia, even if adequate oxygenation is maintained.

Unchanged Characteristics and Survival among Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients during First, Second, and Third Waves: A Prospective Observational Cohort

Background: This study was carried out to compare characteristics and outcomes in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 during first, second, and third waves. Methods: We included consecutive adults admitted to the intensive care unit between March 2020 and July 2021. We compared three groups defined by the epidemic intake phase: waves 1 (W1), 2 (W2), and 3 (W3). Results: We included 289 patients. Two hundred and eight (72%) patients were men with a median age of 63 years (IQR: 54–72), of whom 68 (23.6%) died in hospital. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) was inversely associated with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in multivariate analysis (p = 0.003) but not dexamethasone (p = 0.25). The day-90 mortality rate did not vary from W1 (27.4%) to W2 (23.9%) and W3 (22%), p = 0.67. By multivariate analysis, older age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.94/year, p < 0.001), immunodeficiency (OR: 0.33, p = 0.04), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.26, p < 0.001), and invasive MV (OR: 0.13, p < 0.001) were inversely associated with higher day-90 survival as opposed to the use of intermediate heparin thromboprophylaxis dose (OR: 3.21, p = 0.006). HFNO use and dexamethasone were not associated with higher day-90 survival (p = 0.24 and p = 0.56, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, survival did not change between first, second, and third waves while the use of invasive MV decreased. HFNO or intravenous steroids were not associated with better outcomes, whereas the use of intermediate dose of heparin for thromboprophylaxis was associated with higher day-90 survival. Larger multicentric studies are needed to confirm our findings.

The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) became crucial in treating patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite the fear of viral aerosolization, non-invasive respiratory support has gained attention as a way to alleviate ICU overcrowding and reduce the risks associated with intubation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increased demand for research, resulting in numerous publications on observational studies, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in the past three years. This comprehensive narrative overview describes the physiological rationale, pre-COVID-19 evidence, and results of observational studies and randomized control trials regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure in adult patients with COVID-19 and associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The review also highlights the significance of guidelines and recommendations provided by international societies and the need for further well-designed research to determine the optimal use of NIRS in treating this population.

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen.

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen.

Utility of High Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Non-Invasive Ventilation in Severe Covid-19 Pneumonia: Retrospective Comparative Analysis and Assessment in Present Scenario Patients

Background: The pandemic of COVID-19 since its beginning has created havoc all-round the globe. The role of oxygen therapy remains constant. Various modalities have been studied for oxygen delivery to hypoxic patients but high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has lately gained importance in terms of non-invasive oxygen delivery, easy administration and great improvement in patient’s recovery. We conducted this retrospective analysis with the primary objective of looking for the proportion of patients who were successfully weaned off of HFNO or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and the secondary aim was to look for duration of hospital stay and its effect on clinical recovery based on laboratory parameters.&#x0D; Methods: All patients, positive for COVID-19 infection by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RTPCR) were admitted to covid ICU or ward with oxygen requirement and were treated with either NIV or HFNO were enrolled for the study. Patients were grouped under H group (HFNO) or N group (NIV). Daily ABG readings, chest x-ray, respiratory rate, hemodynamic parameters and urine output were noted on 12 hourly intervals. Any changes in above parameters along with need for intubation were assessed.&#x0D; Results: Patients from both the groups showed significant improvement in their oxygen saturation by the fifth day of their treatment. Fourteen patients from the NIV group and 10 from the HFNO group had saturation &gt;90% by Day 5. Of those who presented with saturation of &lt;85%, 2 out of 5 in the NIV group (40%) and 1 of the 2 patients in the HFNO group (50%) showed improvement in their oxygen saturation. The P/F was statistically comparable (p 0.928) in both groups. The levels of bio markers, and the improvement was comparable and correlated with clinical improvement as well.&#x0D; Conclusion: We conclude that though HFNO is accepted better than NIV, the improvement in the respiratory status of the patient was comparable with both the treatment modalities and hence we do not recommend use of HFNO, especially in a situation of gross deficit of oxygen availability as compared to the exponential rise in the demand.

High-flow nasal oxygenation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has the potential to improve patient safety by limiting hypoxaemia during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The degree of benefit is not adequately established. English language literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were performed to identify randomised controlled trials comparing HFNO and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxic events observed during endoscopic procedures. The secondary endpoints were the incidence of recourse to rescue manoeuvres, procedure interruption, and adverse events. A meta-analysis and a post hoc trial sequence analysis were performed. A total of 2867 patients from six randomised controlled trials were considered. Desaturation was observed in 5.2% and 27.2% of patients receiving HFNO and COT, respectively. Desaturation <90% was observed in 1.8% and 12.6% of the patients receiving HFNO and COT, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, desaturation occurrence was lower during HFNO than during COT in non-obese patients (2.2% vs 25.2%) and obese patients (22.9% vs 43.3%). Desaturation occurrence was lower during maximum (3.6% vs 26.9%) and minimum (15.9% vs 29.8%) HFNO therapy than during COT. HFNO showed a lower recurrence to rescue manoeuvres rate (4.7% vs 34.3%), a lower procedure interruption rate (0.4% vs 6.7%), and a lower adverse events rate (18.7% vs 21%) than COT. A high level of heterogeneity between the studies precluded confidence in drawing inference from the meta-analysis. The evidence reviewed suggests that compared with COT, HFNO has fewer hypoxaemic events during gastrointestinal endoscopy, but this may not apply to all patients and clinical scenarios.

Coste-efectividad de la oxigenoterapia de alto flujo en el tratamiento de la neumonía por SARS-CoV-2

Introductionhigh-oxygen nasal cannulas in patients with respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia have not been studied from a cost-effectiveness point of view. MethodsRetrospective analysis of patients who had entered the COVID-area of an intensive medicine service in a third reference hospital, between March-December 2020. An effectiveness cost analysis was carried out comparing 2therapeutic decisions: the experimental strategy was defined as a mixed strategy consisting of the initial application of high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and application of VMI only to HFNO failures. The optimal rational decision was defined as maximizing expected profit, and economic efficiency was assessed by calculating the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for years of life gained. ResultsOf the 185 patients tested, 101 (55%) received invasive mechanical ventilation immediately and 84 (45%) were treated with HFNO at the outset. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing both therapeutic strategies, the probability that the experimental strategy would be more effective was 0.974, reaching statistical significance: Difference in average proportions -0.113; 95% CI:-0.018 to -0.208. This corresponds to an NNT of 9 patients. The optimal decision was HFNO's strategy followed by VMI in HFNO failures. This option had an RCEI of 5582 euros per year of life gained. ConclusionsIt is important to establish in the future reliable markers in the use of HFNO so that this therapy improves its cost-effective benefits.

Strategies to achieve adherence to prone positioning in awake COVID-19 patients with high-flow nasal oxygen. A case series.

IntroductionThe use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is a simple method that can reduce intubation in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF). Early and prolonged prone position has demonstrated benefits on mortality in mechanically ventilated patients and on intubation in awake patients with ARF. However, strategies to achieve adherence to awake prone positioning (APP) have not been previously described.Case and outcomesWe present six patients with ARF due to COVID-19 treated with HFNO and APP. The median (p25–75) of PaFiO2 upon admission was 121 (112–175). The average duration of APP on the first day was 16 h (SD 5 h). Duration (median p25–75) in APP for the following 20 days was 13 (10–18) h/day. Several strategies such as the presence of a health care team, recreational activities, adaptation of the circadian rhythm, oral nutritional support, and analgesics were used to improve prone tolerance. None of the patients suffered from delirium, all were ambulating on discharge from the ICU and none require intubation.ConclusionThe case series presented show the feasibility of prolonged use of HFNO and APP in patients with COVID-19 and severe persistent hypoxemia and described strategies to enhance adherence.

COVID-19 in Older Individuals Requiring Hospitalization.

Older individuals have an increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and a higher risk for complications and death. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of older patients admitted with COVID-19 and describe their outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients older than 65 years admitted to the COVID-19 Department of the University Hospital of Heraklion. Data recorded and evaluated included age, gender, Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) severity score, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use, admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), laboratory exams, treatment administered, and outcome. In total, 224 patients were evaluated in the present study. The median age was 75 years and 105 (46.9%) were female. In 50 patients (22.7%), HFNO was used and 23 (10.3%) were admitted to the ICU. Mortality was 13.4% (30 patients). Patients that died had higher age, were more likely to be male, had an IDSA severity score of 3, had prior HFNO use, had been admitted to the ICU, and were also more likely to have a higher white blood cell (WBC) count, CRP, ferritin, procalcitonin, d-dimers, and troponin. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified age and the need for HFNO use to be independently positively associated with mortality. To conclude, COVID-19 carries significant mortality in hospitalized older patients, which increases with age, while the need for HFNO also increased the likelihood of worse outcomes. Clinicians caring for patients with COVID-19 should bear in mind these two factors. Future studies could elaborate on the effect of new variants on the dynamics of mortality in older patients.

Use of high-flow nasal oxygen in spontaneously breathing pediatric patients undergoing tubeless airway surgery: A prospective observational study.

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen is gaining popularity in apneic and spontaneously breathing adult patients during anesthesia. This prospective observational study evaluated the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen in maintaining adequate oxygenation and ventilation in spontaneously breathing pediatric patients with dynamic airway obstruction, undergoing tubeless airway surgery.Oxygenation was provided via an age-appropriate, high-flow nasal cannula at a flow rate of 2 L kg−1 min−1. Propofol and remifentanil were used to maintain anesthesia while preserving spontaneous respiration. We sought to determine the incidence and risk factors of rescue ventilation. Rescue ventilation with a face mask was performed when the pulse oximetry oxygen saturation was <90% or transcutaneous carbon dioxide was >80 mm Hg.In total, 27 patients were included in the final analysis. Median (interquartile range) of pulse oximetry and transcutaneous carbon dioxide were 100% (99%–100%) and 58.4 mm Hg (51.4–70.3 mm Hg), respectively. Altogether, 9 (33.3%) patients needed rescue ventilation during anesthesia. Of these, 7 patients (25.9%) developed oxygen desaturation (<90%) and 2 patients (7.4%) developed hypercarbia. Patients who required rescue ventilation were significantly younger (8.2 vs 28.8 months, P = .02) and required a longer anesthesia time (55.7 vs 41.0 minutes, P = .04) than those who did not.In conclusion, High-flow nasal oxygen is an alternative technique to maintain oxygenation in children undergoing airway surgeries. However, younger age and longer anesthesia time are significant risk factors leading to the requirement of rescue ventilation in these patients. Further studies with large sample size are required for clinical application of these techniques.

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial

RationaleIn patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT)...

P.78 Use of high-flow nasal oxygen to facilitate optimal surgical conditions in the management of idiopathic subglottic stenosis during third trimester

P.78 Use of high-flow nasal oxygen to facilitate optimal surgical conditions in the management of idiopathic subglottic stenosis during third trimester

Comparison of the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard facemask oxygenation for pre- and apneic oxygenation during anesthesia induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIn recent years, high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has been widely used in clinic, especially in perioperative period. Many studies have discussed the role of HFNO in pre- and apneic oxygenation, but their results are controversial. Our study aimed to examine the effectiveness of HFNO in pre- and apneic oxygenation by a meta-analysis of RCTs.MethodsEMBASE, PUBMED, and COCHRANE LIBRARY databases were searched from inception to July 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on the effectiveness of HFNO versus standard facemask ventilation (FMV) in pre- and apenic oxygenation. Studies involving one of the following six indicators: (1) Arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), (2) End expiratory oxygen concentration (EtO2), (3) Safe apnoea time, (4) Minimum pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2min), (5) Oxygenation (O2) desaturation, (6) End expiratory carbon dioxide (EtCO2) or Arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure(PaCO2) were included. Due to the source of clinical heterogeneity in the observed indicators in this study, we adopt random-effects model for analysis, and express it as the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a confidence interval of 95% (95%CI). We conducted a risk assessment of bias for eligible studies and assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsFourteen RCTs and 1012 participants were finally included. We found the PaO2 was higher in HFNO group than FMV group with a MD (95% CI) of 57.38 mmHg (25.65 to 89.10; p = 0.0004) after preoxygenation and the safe apnoea time was significantly longer with a MD (95% CI) of 86.93 s (44.35 to 129.51; p < 0.0001) during anesthesia induction. There were no significant statistical difference in the minimum SpO2, CO2 accumulation, EtO2 and O2 desaturation rate during anesthesia induction between the two groups.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that HFNO should be considered as an oxygenation tool for patients during anesthesia induction. Compared with FMV, continuous use of HFNO during anesthesia induction can significantly improve oxygenation and prolong safe apnoea time in surgical patients.

Tweaking conventions: Use of high-flow nasal oxygen for intra-operative oxygenation in a parturient with severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Tweaking conventions: Use of high-flow nasal oxygen for intra-operative oxygenation in a parturient with severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.