Use Of High-flow Nasal Oxygen Research Articles

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.

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.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients after Sequential Oxygen Therapy in Tertiary Medical College

Abstract Background: Acute respiratory failure is the main manifestation in patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19), being hospitalized in an intensive care unit, and may even require invasive mechanical ventilation, which is associated with high mortality. The use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for severe hypoxemic respiratory failure cases was limited in hospital setups. Its benefit to patients, compliance, complications, as well as comparison with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) mask were not studied. Patients and Methods: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure who were categorized into three groups depending on admission oxygen saturation and respiratory rate for non-rebreather bag-mask (NRBM), HFNO, and NIV. All patients were observed for 2 weeks and defined parameters were noted. The mean and standard deviation were compared between the groups by using the ANOVA test; P-value &lt;0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The comparison of mean escalation of oxygen requirement on the 5th day showed a significant result (94.27 ± 1.7 vs. 92.16 ± 4.05 vs. 90.73 ± 2.49, respectively, P = 0.001). Similar findings were also found on the 10th day and 15th day of treatment. The NIV group showed a significant lack of compliance to oxygen therapy (P &lt; 0.001) and also a significant incidence of complications (P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: NIV showed a significant amount of escalation in oxygen requirement, reduced therapy compliance, and associated complications in comparison to the NRBM and HFNO in COVID-19 settings.

Ulcer due to prolonged use of high-flow nasal oxygen

Ulcer due to prolonged use of high-flow nasal oxygen

Low mortality rates among critically ill adults with COVID-19 at three non-academic intensive care units in south Sweden.

BackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic has put an exceptional strain on intensive care units worldwide. During the first year, the survival of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure appears to have improved. We aimed to describe the mortality rates, management characteristics and two pandemic waves during the first year at three non‐academic rural intensive care units in Sweden.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed all cases of COVID‐19 admitted to intensive care units in Region Jönköping County during 1 year. The primary endpoint was 30‐day mortality.ResultsBetween 14th March 2020 and 13th March 2021, 264 patients were admitted to undergo intensive care with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. The 30‐day mortality rate after the initial intensive care admission was 12.9%, and this rate remained unchanged during both pandemic waves. However, we found several distinct differences between the two pandemic waves, including an increase in the use of high‐flow nasal oxygen but a decrease in invasive mechanical ventilation use, biochemical markers of inflammation, continuous renal replacement therapy and length of stay in the intensive care unit.ConclusionOur study showed that critically ill patients with COVID‐19 in Sweden have a low 30‐day mortality rate which compares well with results published from academic centres and national cohorts throughout Scandinavia. During the second pandemic wave, the proportion of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and continuous renal replacement therapy was lower than that in the first wave. This could be the result of increased knowledge and improved therapeutic options.

ACP provided 2 conditional recommendations on use of high-flow nasal oxygen in acute respiratory failure.

Qaseem A, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Fitterman N, et al. Appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:977-84. 33900796.

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen vs. standard oxygen therapy in hematological malignancy patients with acute respiratory failure in hematology wards

Background/aimHigh flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was mostly used in intensive care units (ICUs) with few studies in other departments. We hypothesized that HFNC applied at wards is beneficial for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.Materials and methodsThe study is a single center, randomized controlled study. Inclusion criteria were hypoxemic respiratory failure and hematological malignancy. Patients were randomized to either venturi mask/nasal cannula oxygen treatment or HFNC.ResultsOne hundred patients were included in the study. Median age was 58.5 (18–86) years and APACHE II score was 17 (5–29). HFNC group was 51 patients and the oxygen treatment group 49 patients. P/F ratios were similar between the groups throughout the study period. Endotracheal intubation was required in 10 (20.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group (p = 0.14). A total of 17 (35.0%) patients in oxygen group and 17 (33.0%) patients in HFNC group received noninvasive mechanical ventilation (p = 0.97). Median VAS comfort scores at the 2nd and 24th hours were not different between groups. The 28-day mortality rate was 36.7% (18 deaths) in the standard group and 45.0% (23 deaths) in the HFNC group (p = 0.39).ConclusionHFNC applied in wards is not superior to standard oxygen treatment for acute respiratory failure in hematological malignancy patients.

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for patients with Covid-19 outside intensive care units

IntroductionHigh-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has traditionally only been used in intensive care units (ICU) especially in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). MethodsWe studied the use of HFNO at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, in patients with moderate to severe ARDS related to Covid-19 as well as its benefits both for patients and to offload the ICU. The patients were observed with frequent controls to assess the need of ICU in case of deterioration. ResultsWe studied 41 patients with HFNO treatment either as primarily treatment (Step-Up) or after stabilizing in the ICU (Step-Down). The average duration for treatment with HFNO was 5.6 days. Of these patients 55% were discharged home or to geriatric rehabilitation and 10% avoided ICU completely. The usage of HFNO saved in total 229 days in the ICU. Mortality was higher among elderly patients, and patients with comorbidities (mainly hypertension and obesity). Discussion and conclusionHFNO treatment is feasible and efficient for patients with Covid-19, saving resources in the ICU and offering additional advantages as waken proning and fewer complications compared to traditional ICU care. It requires however frequent controls as deterioration is recurrent.

In-Hospital Mortality of COVID-19 Patients Treated with High-Flow Nasal Oxygen: Evaluation of Biomarkers and Development of the Novel Risk Score Model CROW-65.

To replace mechanical ventilation (MV), which represents the cornerstone therapy in severe COVID-19 cases, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy has recently emerged as a less-invasive therapeutic possibility for those patients. Respecting the risk of MV delay as a result of HFNO use, we aimed to evaluate which parameters could determine the risk of in-hospital mortality in HFNO-treated COVID-19 patients. This single-center cohort study included 102 COVID-19-positive patients treated with HFNO. Standard therapeutic methods and up-to-date protocols were used. Patients who underwent a fatal event (41.2%) were significantly older, mostly male patients, and had higher comorbidity burdens measured by CCI. In a univariate analysis, older age, shorter HFNO duration, ventilator initiation, higher CCI and lower ROX index all emerged as significant predictors of adverse events (p < 0.05). Variables were dichotomized and included in the multivariate analysis to define their relative weights in the computed risk score model. Based on this, a risk score model for the prediction of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNO consisting of four variables was defined: CCI > 4, ROX index ≤ 4.11, LDH-to-WBC ratio, age > 65 years (CROW-65). The main purpose of CROW-65 is to address whether HFNO should be initiated in the subgroup of patients with a high risk of in-hospital mortality.

Appropriate Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Hospitalized Patients

Sponsoring Organization: American College of Physicians (ACP)BackgroundThis is the first guideline focused solely on use of high-flow nasal cannulae

A Prospective Observational Study of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy and Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Background: Treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) includes treating the underlying disease, conventional oxygen therapy (COT), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), and invasive mechanical ventilation. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the use of HFNO and NIV in patients with moderate-to-severe AHRF to the tertiary level intensive care unit (ICU) of a teaching hospital. Methods: All adult patients admitted to the ICU with AHRF and failed COT were included. Administration of HFNO or NIV was protocol-based and targeted improvement in oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, PaO2, and PaCO2. Demographic data, clinical details, vital parameters, and laboratory findings were noted at prespecified intervals. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II at 24 h of ICU admission and daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment were noted. The primary outcome was failure of treatment modalities defined as need for intubation and invasive ventilation. The secondary outcomes measured at 28 days were differences in ventilator-free days, ICU and hospital length of stay, patient comfort, and mortality. Results: A total of 35 patients were included in the study. Treatment failure was 20.8% (5/24) in the NIV group and 36% (4/11) in the HFNO group (P = 0.32). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 22.67 ± 9.92 and 19.36 ± 12.45 (P = 0.44) in the NIV and HFNO groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 12.5% (3/24) and 27.2% (3/11) in the NIV and HFNO groups, respectively (P = 0.282). Conclusion: Treatment with HFNO is associated with nonsignificant increase in the need for intubation and 28-day mortality compared to NIV. Larger studies are required to assess the utility of HFNO in moderate-to-severe AHRF.

High-flow nasal oxygen for laryngeal tumor debulking: case report and current challenges

&lt;p class="abstract"&gt;High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has brought new opportunities in shared airway surgery. Contemporary challenges with its use in severely obstructive conditions such as laryngeal tumors still need to be addressed as there is discrepancy in its use and access among centres. We reported a case in which the use of HFNO allowed laryngeal tumor debulking while avoiding tracheotomy in a stridulous patient. The patient described was a 70 year old patient with stridor at rest secondary to a laryngeal tumor diagnosed five days before surgery. Tumor debulking could be safely initiated under general anaesthesia, which would not have been possible without HFNO. This report served as an example of an alternative to awake tracheotomy in the management of severely obstructive laryngeal pathology We wish to discuss through this case management of severely obstructive laryngeal pathology in the era of HFNO, while encouraging discussion on its potential benefits and limits.&lt;/p&gt;

Outcome Improvement Between the First Two Waves of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a Single Tertiary-Care Hospital in Belgium

To compare patient management and outcome during the first and second waves of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic. Single-center prospective cohort study. Tertiary-care University Hospital. All adult patients admitted in either the first (from March 15 to May 15, 2020) or second (from October 1 to November 30, 2020) wave of coronavirus disease 2019. None. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. During the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 33 patients (4.8%) were transferred due to overcrowding and excluded from analysis. There were 341 (first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) and 695 (second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic) coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to the hospital, with median age first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as 68 (57-80) and second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as 71 (60-80) (p = 0.15), and similar admission severity. For the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic versus second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, 30-day mortality was 74/341 (22%) and 98/662 (15%) (p = 0.007). In the ward, 11/341 (3.2%) and 404/662 (61%) received dexamethasone (p < 0.001); 6/341 (2%) and 79/662 (12%) received high-flow nasal oxygen (p < 0.0001); 2/341 (0.6%) and 88/662 (13.3%) received remdesivir (p < 0.0001); 249/341 (73%) and 0/662 (0%) received hydroxychloroquine (p < 0.0001); and 87/341 (26%) and 128/662 (19%) (p = 0.024) patients were transferred to ICU. On ICU admission, median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was 6 (3-7) and 4 (3-6) (p = 0.02). High-flow nasal oxygen was given to 16/87 (18%) and 102/128 (80%) (p < 0.001); 69/87 (79%) and 56/128 (44%) received mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001) with durations 17 days (10-26 d) and 10 days (5-17 d) (p = 0.01). Median ICU length of stay was 14 days (5-27 d) and 6 days (3-11 d) (p < 0.001). Finally, 16/87 (18%) and 8/128 (6%) received renal replacement therapy (p = 0.0055); and 64/87 (74%) and 51/128 (40%) needed vasopressor support (p < 0.001). The main therapeutic changes between the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the second wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were use of steroids, unrestrictive use of high-flow nasal oxygen for hypoxemic patients, and transfer of patients to other geographic areas in the case of ICU overcrowding. These changes were associated with a decrease in 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and organ support.

High-flow nasal oxygenation or standard oxygenation for gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation in patients at risk of hypoxaemia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ODEPHI trial)

BackgroundWe aimed to determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen could reduce the incidence of decreased peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) compared with standard oxygen in patients at risk of hypoxaemia undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation. MethodsThis was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with blinded assessment of the primary outcome evaluating high-flow nasal oxygen (gas flow 70 L min−1, inspired oxygen fraction 0.50) or standard oxygen delivered via nasal cannula or face mask (6 L min−1) or nasopharyngeal tube (5 L min−1) in patients at risk of hypoxaemia (i.e. >60 yr old, or with underlying cardiac or respiratory disease, or with ASA physical status >1, or with obesity or sleep apnoea syndrome) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of SpO2 ≤92%. Secondary outcomes included prolonged or severe desaturations, need for manoeuvres to maintain free upper airways, and other adverse events. ResultsIn 379 patients, a decrease in SpO2 ≤92% occurred in 9.4% (18/191) for the high-flow nasal oxygen group, and 33.5% (63/188) for the standard oxygen groups (adjusted absolute risk difference, –23.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), –28.9 to –16.7]; P<0.001). Prolonged desaturation (>1 min) and manoeuvres to maintain free upper airways were less frequent in the high-flow nasal oxygen group than in the standard oxygen group (7.3% vs 14.9%, P=.02, and 11.1% vs 32.4%, P<0.001). ConclusionsIn patients at risk of hypoxaemia undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation, use of high-flow nasal oxygen significantly reduced the incidence of peripheral oxygen desaturation. Clinical trial registrationNCT03829293.

Appropriate Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Hospitalized Patients for Initial or Postextubation Management of Acute Respiratory Failure: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure. It is based on the best available evidence on the benefits and harms of HFNO, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of HFNO. The patient-centered health outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day hospital readmissions, hospital-acquired pneumonia, days of intubation or reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU transfers, patient comfort, dyspnea, delirium, barotrauma, compromised nutrition, gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge, discharge disposition, and skin breakdown. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated in a hospital setting (including emergency departments, hospital wards, intermediate or step-down units, and ICUs). ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than noninvasive ventilation in hospitalized adults for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than conventional oxygen therapy for hospitalized adults with postextubation acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased. To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults. English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists. 29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k= 11) or COT (k= 21). Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus. Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence). Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized. Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known. American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

Non-invasive respiratory support strategies in COVID-19

Non-invasive respiratory support strategies in COVID-19