Role Of High-flow Nasal Therapy Research Articles

The role of high-flow nasal therapy in bronchiectasis: a post hoc analysis.

High-flow nasal therapy significantly reduces exacerbation rates and improves quality of life in patients with stable bronchiectasis. High-flow nasal therapy is therefore a potential treatment option for patients with bronchiectasis. https://bit.ly/2JFXuQc

High flow nasal therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeThe role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) as compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to address this issue. MethodsWe searched PubMed, Medline and Embase until November 7th, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized prospective and retrospective evidence were selected. Observational studies were considered for sensitivity analysis. Primary outcome was mortality rate; intubation rate was a secondary outcome. ResultsWe included four studies in the primary analysis: one RCT, two RCT's post-hoc analyses and one retrospective study. We found no significant difference in short-term mortality comparing HFNT vs. COT: 1) ICU: n = 872 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.80 [0.44,1.45], p = 0.46, I2 = 30%, p = 0.24; 2) 28-day: n = 996 patients, OR = 0.79 [0.45,1.38], p = 0.40, I2 = 52%, p = 0.12). Conversely, we found a reduction of intubation rate in the HFNT group (n = 1052 patients, OR = 0.74 [0.55,0.98], p = 0.03, I2 = 7%, p = 0.36). The inclusion of one observational study for sensitivity analysis did not grossly change results. ConclusionsWe found no benefit of HFNT over COT on mortality in immunocompromised patients with ARF. However, HFNT was associated with a lower intubation rate warranting further research.

High-flow nasal therapy vs standard oxygen during breaks off noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: A pilot randomized controlled trial

PurposeTo assess the role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) compared to standard oxygen (SO) as complementary therapy to non-invasive ventilation (NIV). MethodsMulticenter trial including patients (n = 54) anticipated to receive NIV for ≥24 h due to acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to SO or HFNT during breaks off NIV. Primary outcome was total time on and off NIV. Secondary outcomes were comfort and dyspnea, respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), tolerance and side effects. ResultsTotal time per patient on NIV (1315 vs 1441 min) and breaks (1362 vs 1196 min), and mean duration of each break (520 vs 370 min) were similar in the HFNT and SO arms (p > .05).Comfort score was higher on HFNT than on SO (8.3 ± 2.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.3, p = .001). Dyspnea, RR and SpO2 were similar in the two arms, but the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO during breaks did not occur with HFNT. ConclusionCompared to SO, HFNT did not reduce time on NIV. However, it was more comfortable and the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO did not occur with HFNT. Therefore, HFNT could be a suitable alternative to SO during breaks off NIV.