Efficacy of nasal high flow therapy on the coordination between breathing and swallowing of saliva during daytime nap in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: A single center, randomized crossover controlled study

Respiratory support in the emergency department a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An estimated 20% of emergency department (ED) patients require respiratory support (RS). Evidence suggests that nasal high flow (NHF) reduces RS need.

AIMS

This review compared NHF to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in adult ED patients.

METHOD

The systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) methods reflect the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NHF to COT or NIV use in the ED. Three summary estimates were reported: (1) need to escalate care, (2) mortality, and (3) adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

This SR and MA included 18 RCTs (n = 1874 participants). Two of the five MA conclusions were statistically significant. Compared with COT, NHF reduced the risk of escalation by 45% (RR 0.55; 95% CI [0.33, 0.92], p = .02, NNT = 32); however, no statistically significant differences in risk of mortality (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.68, 1.54]; p = .91) and AE (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.61, 1.59]; p = .94) outcomes were found. Compared with NIV, NHF increased the risk of escalation by 60% (RR 1.60; 95% CI [1.10, 2.33]; p = .01); mortality risk was not statistically significant (RR 1.23, 95% CI [0.78, 1.95]; p = .37).

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Evidence-based decision-making regarding RS in the ED is challenging. ED clinicians have at times had to rely on non-ED evidence to support their practice. Compared with COT, NHF was seen to be superior and reduced the risk of escalation. Conversely, for this same outcome, NIV was superior to NHF. However, substantial clinical heterogeneity was seen in the NIV delivered. Research considering NHF versus NIV is needed. COVID-19 has exposed the research gaps and slowed the progress of ED research.

Effects of nasal packing and transseptal suturing on swallowing after septoplasty

PURPOSE

This clinical trial aimed to investigate the effects of different nasal packing methods and transseptal suture technique on swallowing after septoplasty.

METHODS

This randomized prospective study consists of 180 consecutive patients with septal deviation. All the patients underwent septoplasty. All the patients were randomly assigned to three groups. In group A, transseptal sutures were used for septal stabilization. In group B, both nasal passages were packed with Merocel tampons for septal stabilization. In group C, both nasal passages were packed with Doyle silicone splints for septal stabilization. For the evaluation of swallowing, the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) questionnaire and a visual analog scale (VAS) were administered to all the patients preoperatively and on the second and seventh postoperative days.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty two of the patients (67.7%) were female and 58 of them (32.2%) were male. The mean age was 32.41 ± 12.37 years (range: 18-57 years). Both EAT-10 and VAS scores on the second postoperative day were significantly higher than the preoperative scores in all the groups (p < 0.05). The transseptal suture group had significantly lower EAT-10 and VAS scores on the second postoperative day than the Merocel packing and silicone packing groups (p < 0.05). Both EAT-10 and VAS scores on the postop 7th day significantly decreased in all groups compared to the postop second day (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Septoplasty affects swallowing, regardless of whether a tampon is applied. Transeptal suturing has a lesser effect on swallowing than other techniques. Although silicone packing is a less invasive method, it negatively affects swallowing, similar to Merocel packing. The transseptal suture technique is more comfortable than the other techniques in terms of swallowing function in the postoperative period.