Nasal high flow therapy and PtCO2in stable COPD: A randomized controlled cross-over trial

The effects of flow settings during high-flow nasal cannula support for adult subjects: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

During high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy, flow plays a crucial role in the physiological effects. However, there is no consensus on the initial flow settings and subsequent titration. Thus, we aimed to systematically synthesize the effects of flows during HFNC treatment.

METHODS

In this systematic review, two investigators independently searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane for in vitro and in vivo studies investigating the effects of flows in HFNC treatment published in English before July 10, 2022. We excluded studies that investigated the pediatric population (< 18 years) or used only one flow. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022345419.

RESULTS

In total, 32,543 studies were identified, and 44 were included. In vitro studies evaluated the effects of flow settings on the fraction of inspired oxygen (F_IO₂), positive end-expiratory pressure, and carbon dioxide (CO₂) washout. These effects are flow-dependent and are maximized when the flow exceeds the patient peak inspiratory flow, which varies between patients and disease conditions. In vivo studies report that higher flows result in improved oxygenation and dead space washout and can reduce work of breathing. Higher flows also lead to alveolar overdistention in non-dependent lung regions and patient discomfort. The impact of flows on different patients is largely heterogeneous.

INTERPRETATION

Individualizing flow settings during HFNC treatment is necessary, and titrating flow based on clinical findings like oxygenation, respiratory rates, ROX index, and patient comfort is a pragmatic way forward.

Efficacy of Nasal High-Flow Oxygen Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in Long-Term Oxygen and Nocturnal Non-Invasive Ventilation during Exercise Training

High-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) improves gas exchange and dead space washout and reduces the level of work required for breathing. This study aimed to evaluate pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) combined with HFOT in COPD patients treated with nocturnal non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). In particular, we sought to discover whether the addition of HFOT during exercise training could improve patients’ performance, mainly with regard to their Six-Minute Walking Test (6MWT) outcomes, and reduce the exacerbation rates, periods of rehospitalization or need to resort to unscheduled visits. Thirty-one COPD subjects (13 female) who used nocturnal NIV were included in a randomized controlled trial and allocated to one of two groups: the experimental group (EG), with 15 subjects, subjected to PR with HFOT; and the control group (CG), with 16 subjects, subjected to PR without HFOT. The primary outcome of the study was the observation of changes in the 6MWT. The secondary outcome of the study was related to the rate of exacerbation and hospitalization. Data were collected at baseline and after one, two and three cycles of cycle-ergometer exercise training performed in 20 supervised sessions of 40 min thrice per week, with a washout period of 3 months between each rehabilitation cycle. Statistical significance was not found for the 6MWT distance (W = 0.974; p = 0.672) at the last follow-up, but statistical significance was found for the Borg scale in regard to dyspnea (W = 2.50; p < 0.001) and fatigue (W = 2.00; p < 0.001). HFOT may offer a positive option for dyspnea-affected COPD patients in the context of LTOT and nocturnal NIV.

Recent advances in the use of high flow nasal oxygen therapies

High flow nasal oxygen is a relatively new option for treating patients with respiratory failure, which decreases work of breathing, improves tidal volume, and modestly increases positive end expiratory pressure. Despite well-described physiologic benefits, the clinical impact of high flow nasal oxygen is still under investigation. In this article, we review the most recent findings on the clinical efficacy of high flow nasal oxygen in Type I, II, III, and IV respiratory failure within adult and pediatric patients. Additionally, we discuss studies across clinical settings, including emergency departments, intensive care units, outpatient, and procedural settings.

Comparison of Conventional Oxygen Therapy With High-Flow Nasal Oxygenation in the Management of Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

Introduction: The effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure (RF) remains controversial. The current study compared the effectiveness of HFNO in patients with hypercapnic RF with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

Objectives: The primary objective was to compare changes in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) between those receiving COT and HFNO. The secondary objectives were to compare changes in the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiratory rate (RR), serum bicarbonate level, base excess, lactate level, and incidence of the need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and mechanical ventilation (MV).

Methods: We recruited 30 patients with mild to moderate hypercapnic RF in the HFNO group, and data of 30 patients from historical controls, who matched the inclusion criteria, were obtained from medical records for comparison (COT group). The study was terminated after two hours, and patients were managed per the existing protocol after that. Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis was repeated at the baseline, first, second, and third hours.

Results: In the COT group, the mean RR at the baseline, first, second, and third hours was 24.5 ± 2.61, 24.9 ± 3.03, 26.03 ± 3.4, and 22.90 ± 1.86, whereas, in the HFNO group, it was 25.93 ± 3.91, 23.00 ± 3.54, 22.50 ± 3.38, and 21.90 ± 3.57, respectively. The mean PaCO2 in the COT vs. HFNO groups was 54.45 ± 5.83 vs. 62.22 ± 9.15, 57.74 ± 6.05 vs. 58.65 ± 10.43, 60.79 ± 7.48 vs. 60.41 ± 11.24, and 55.23 ± 6.63 vs. 56.95 ± 10.31. The mean SpO2 in the COT group at these points of time was 94.50 ± 1.46, 95.4 ± 1.28, 96.10 ± 1.84, and 97.53 ± 2.05, whereas, in the HFNO group, it was 95.40 ± 2.55, 98.63 ± 1.43, 99.00 ± 1.66, and 99.50 ± 1.31, respectively. The patients who needed NIV after the study period were 50% and 36.67% in the COT and HFNO groups, respectively.

Conclusions: There was no change in PaCO2 levels with HFNO, but there was a significant improvement in SpO2 and PaO2 levels and a decreased RR. Following the termination of the study protocol, more patients in the COT group needed NIV than those in the HFNO group.

Predicting Adverse Events During Six-Minute Walk Test Using Continuous Physiological Signals

Background and Objective: The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is a common functional assessment test, but adverse events during the test can be potentially dangerous and can lead to serious consequences and low quality of life. This study aimed to predict the occurrence of adverse events during 6MWT, using continuous physiological parameters combined with demographic variables.

Methods: 578 patients with respiratory disease who had performed standardized 6MWT with wearable devices from three hospitals were included in this study. Adverse events occurred in 73 patients (12.6%). ECG, respiratory signal, tri-axial acceleration signals, oxygen saturation, demographic variables and scales assessment were obtained. Feature extraction and selection of physiological signals were performed during 2-min resting and 1-min movement phases. 5-fold cross-validation was used to assess the machine learning models. The predictive ability of different models and scales was compared.

Results: Of the 16 features selected by the recursive feature elimination method, those related to blood oxygen were the most important and those related to heart rate were the most numerous. Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) had the highest AUC of 0.874 ± 0.063 and the AUC of Logistic Regression was AUC of 0.869 ± 0.067. The mMRC (Modified Medical Research Council) scale and Borg scale had the lowest performance, with an AUC of 0.733 and 0.656 respectively.

Conclusion: It is feasible to predict the occurrence of adverse event during 6MWT using continuous physiological parameters combined with demographic variables. Wearable sensors/systems can be used for continuous physiological monitoring and provide additional tools for patient safety during 6MWT.

Hospital Cost Savings for Sequential COPD Patients Receiving Domiciliary Nasal High Flow Therapy

Purpose

To estimate the 5-year budget impact to Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) hospitals of domiciliary nasal high flow (NHF) therapy to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who require long term oxygen therapy.

Methods

Hospital admission counts along with length of stay were obtained from hospital records of 200 COPD patients enrolled in a 12-month randomized clinical trial of NHF in Denmark, both over a 12-month baseline and then in the study period while on randomized treatment (control or NHF). NZ costings from similar COPD patients were estimated using data from Middlemore Hospital, Auckland and were applied to the Danish trial. The budget impact of NHF was estimated over the predicted 5-year lifetime of the device when used by patients sequentially.

Results

Fifty-five of 100 patients in the NHF group and 44 of 100 patients in the control group were admitted to hospital with a respiratory diagnosis during the baseline year. They had 108 admissions in the treatment group vs 89 in the control group, with 632 vs 438 days in hospital, and modeled annual costs of $9443 vs $6512 per patient, respectively. During the study period there were 38 vs 44 patients with 67 vs 80 admissions and 302 vs 526 days in hospital, at a modeled annual cost of $6961 vs $9565 per patient respectively. Taking into account capital expenditure and running costs, this resulted in cost savings of $5535 per patient-year (95% CI, -$36 to -$11,034). With 90% usage over the estimated five-year lifetime of the NHF device, amortized capital costs of $594 per year and annual running costs of $662, we estimate a 5-year undiscounted cost saving per NHF device of $18,626 ($16,934 when discounted to net present value at 5% per annum). There would still be annual cost savings over a wide range of assumptions.

Conclusion

Domiciliary NHF therapy for patients with severe COPD has the potential to provide substantial hospital cost savings over the five-year lifetime of the NHF device.

High Flow Nasal Cannula compared to Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: a bench and physiological study

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is extensively used for acute respiratory failure. However, questions remain regarding its physiological effects. We explored 1) whether HFNC produced similar effects to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); 2) possible explanations of respiratory rate changes; 3) the effects of mouth opening. Two studies were conducted: a bench study using a manikin's head with lungs connected to a breathing simulator while delivering HFNC flow rates from 0 to 60L/min; a physiological cross-over study in 10 healthy volunteers receiving HFNC (20 to 60L/min) with the mouth open or closed and CPAP 4cmH2O delivered through face-mask. Nasopharyngeal and esophageal pressures were measured; tidal volume and flow were estimated using calibrated electrical impedance tomography. In the bench study, nasopharyngeal pressure at end-expiration reached 4cmH2O with HFNC at 60L/min, while tidal volume decreased with increasing flow. In volunteers with HFNC at 60L/min, nasopharyngeal pressure reached 6.8cmH2O with mouth closed and 0.8cmH2O with mouth open; p<0.001. When increasing HFNC flow, respiratory rate decreased by lengthening expiratory time, tidal volume did not change, and effort decreased (pressure-time product of the respiratory muscles); at 40L/min, effort was equivalent between CPAP and HFNC40L/min and became lower at 60L/min (p=0.045). During HFNC with mouth closed, and not during CPAP, resistance to breathing was increased, mostly during expiration. In conclusion, mouth closure during HFNC induces a positive nasopharyngeal pressure proportional to flow rate and an increase in expiratory resistance that might explain the prolonged expiration and reduction in respiratory rate and effort, and contribute to physiological benefits.

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy reduces the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and acute exacerbation but does not increase exercise capacity or decrease hospitalisation or mortality. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, the use of high-flow nasal cannula decreases arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and increases the partial pressure of oxygen and 6-min walking distance.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies published from database inception to November 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist). The primary outcomes were partial pressure of carbon dioxide and partial pressure of oxygen, and the secondary outcomes were transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and 6-min walking distance.

RESULTS

Nine studies (680 patients) were included. high-flow nasal cannula did not decrease partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with the control interventions (mean difference = -0.81, 95% confidence interval: -2.68 to 1.06, p = .395; I²  = 42.9%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .105). high-flow nasal cannula decreased partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with long-term oxygen therapy (mean difference = -3.25, 95% confidence interval: -5.65 to -0.85, p = .008; I²  = 0%, p_{heterogeneity}   = .375); no difference was observed for the control modalities. high-flow nasal cannula resulted in better partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with control interventions in hypoxemic patients (mean difference = -2.59, 95% confidence interval: -4.82 to -0.35, p = .023; I²  = 32.5%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .224), but not in other types of patients. high-flow nasal cannula did not increase partial pressure of oxygen compared with the control interventions (mean difference = 1.17, 95% confidence interval: -1.50 to 3.83, p = .390; I²  = 0%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .660). high-flow nasal cannula decreased transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide) compared with the control interventions (mean difference = 2.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.07-4.68, p = .044; I²  = 8.7%, p_{heterogeneity}   = .295). high-flow nasal cannula increased 6-min walking distance compared with the control interventions (mean difference = 18.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-,35.57, p = .040; I²  = 0%, p_{heterogeneity}  = .918). The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula did not significantly decrease partial pressure of carbon dioxide or increase partial pressure of oxygen in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, which is different from the previous meta-analysis, but it decreases transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and increased 6-min walking distance.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This meta-analysis shows that in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high-flow nasal cannula improves both transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and 6-min walking distance, suggesting the high-flow nasal cannula has benefits in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Considering that the literature suggests no impact of high-flow nasal cannula on hospitalisation and mortality, the benefits of high-flow nasal cannula might be limited to the patients who survive the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease events. Still, the global impact of high-flow nasal cannula on the quality of life of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease should be examined.

Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy for severe community-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review the evidence on the use of noninvasive respiratory supports (noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) in patients with acute respiratory failure because of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Noninvasive ventilation is strongly advised for the treatment of hypercapnic respiratory failure and recent evidence justifies its use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure when delivered by helmet. Indeed, such interface allows alveolar recruitment by providing high level of positive end-expiratory pressure, which improves hypoxemia. On the other hand, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is effective in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and some articles support its use in patients with hypercapnia. However, early identification of noninvasive respiratory supports treatment failure is crucial to prevent delayed orotracheal intubation and protective invasive mechanical ventilation.

SUMMARY

Noninvasive ventilation is the first-line therapy in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure because of pneumonia. Although an increasing amount of evidence investigated the application of noninvasive respiratory support to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the optimal ventilatory strategy in this setting is uncertain. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation delivered by helmet and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy appear as promising tools but their role needs to be confirmed by future research.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen on Exercise Performance in COPD Patients. Randomized Trial

Background: High-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) provides oxygen-enriched, humidified, and heated air at high flow rates via nasal cannula. It could be an alternative to low-flow oxygen therapy (LFOT) which is commonly used by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during exercise training.

Research Question: We evaluated the hypothesis that HFOT improves exercise endurance in COPD patients compared to LFOT.

Methods: Patients with stable COPD, FEV₁ 40–80% predicted, resting pulse oximetry (SpO₂) ≥92%, performed two constant-load cycling exercise tests to exhaustion at 75% of maximal work rate on two different days, using LFOT (3 L/min) and HFOT (60 L/min, FiO₂ 0.45) in randomized order according to a crossover design. Primary outcome was exercise endurance time, further outcomes were SpO₂, breath rate and dyspnea.

Results: In 79 randomized patients, mean ± SD age 58 ± 9 y, FEV₁ 63 ± 9% predicted, GOLD grades 2-3, resting PaO₂ 9.4 ± 1.0 kPa, intention-to-treat analysis revealed an endurance time of 688 ± 463 s with LFOT and 773 ± 471 s with HFOT, mean difference 85 s (95% CI: 7 to 164, P = 0.034), relative increase of 13% (95% CI: 1 to 28). At isotime, patients had lower respiratory rate and higher SpO₂ with HFOT. At end-exercise, SpO₂ was higher by 2% (95% CI: 2 to 2), and Borg CR10 dyspnea scores were lower by 0.8 points (95% CI: 0.3 to 1.2) compared to LFOT.

Interpretation: In mildly hypoxemic patients with COPD, HFOT improved endurance time in association with higher arterial oxygen saturation, reduced respiratory rate and less dyspnea compared to LFOT. Therefore, HFOT is promising for enhancing exercise performance in COPD.

Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03955770.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in hypoxemic respiratory failure are widely recognized, it is yet unclear whether HFNC can effectively reduce the intubation rate and mortality in hypercapnic respiratory failure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficiency of HFNC in these patients.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was carried out. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to the inclusion criteria. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, respectively. Data from eligible trials were extracted for the meta-analysis.

Results

Eight studies with a total of 621 participants were included (six RCTs and two cohort studies). Our analysis showed that HFNC is noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with respect to intubation rate in both RCTs (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.45–1.88) and cohort studies (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55–1.62). Similarly, the analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in reducing mortality rates (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.42–2.20). Based on RCTs, NIV seemed more effective in reducing mortality (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.68–2.60), but the intertreatment difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between HFNC and NIV relating to change of blood gas analysis or respiratory rate (MD = −0.75, 95% CI: −2.6 to 1.09). Likewise, no significant intergroup differences were found with regard to intensive care unit stay (SMD = −0.07, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.11). Due to a physiological friendly interface and variation, HFNC showed a significant advantage over NIV in patients' comfort and complication of therapy.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations noted, HFNC may be an effective and safe alternative to prevent endotracheal intubation and mortality when NIV is unsuitable in mild-to-moderate hypercapnia. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy as an emerging option for respiratory failure: the present and the future

Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been considered for decades as frontline treatment for acute or chronic respiratory failure. However, COT can be insufficient in severe hypoxaemia whereas NIV, although highly effective, is poorly tolerated by patients and its use requires a specific expertise. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an emerging technique, designed to provide oxygen at high flows with an optimal degree of heat and humidification, which is well tolerated and easy to use in all clinical settings. Physiologically, HFNC reduces the anatomical dead space and improves carbon dioxide wash-out, reduces the work of breathing, and generates a positive end-expiratory pressure and a constant fraction of inspired oxygen. Clinically, HFNC effectively reduces dyspnoea and improves oxygenation in respiratory failure from a variety of aetiologies, thus avoiding escalation to more invasive supports. In recent years it has been adopted to treat de novo hypoxaemic respiratory failure, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), postintubation hypoxaemia and used for palliative respiratory care. While the use of HFNC in acute respiratory failure is now routine as an alternative to COT and sometimes NIV, new potential applications in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (e.g. domiciliary treatment of patients with stable COPD), are currently under evaluation and will become a topic of great interest in the coming years.

The impact of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy on exercise capacity in fibrotic interstitial lung disease: a proof-of-concept randomized controlled crossover trial

Background

Patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (FILD) often experience gas exchange abnormalities and ventilatory limitations, resulting in reduced exercise capacity. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a novel treatment, whose physiological beneficial effects have been demonstrated in various clinical settings. We hypothesized that HFNC oxygen therapy might be superior to conventional oxygen therapy for improving exercise capacity in FILD patients.

Methods

We performed a prospective randomized controlled crossover trial with a high-intensity constant work-rate endurance test (CWRET) using HFNC (50 L/min, FiO₂ 0.5) and a venturi mask (VM) (15 L/min, FiO₂ 0.5) for oxygen delivery in FILD patients. The primary outcome variable was endurance time. The secondary outcome variables were SpO₂, heart rate, Borg scale (dyspnea and leg fatigue), and patient’s comfort.

Results

Seven hundred and eleven patients were screened and 20 eligible patients were randomized. All patients completed the trial. The majority of patients were good responders to VM and HFNC compared with the baseline test (VM 75%; HFNC 65%). There was no significant difference in endurance time between HFNC and VM (HFNC 6.8 [95% CI 4.3–9.3] min vs VM 7.6 [95% CI 5.0–10.1] min, p = 0.669). No significant differences were found in other secondary endpoints. Subgroup analysis with HFNC good responders revealed that HFNC significantly extended the endurance time compared with VM (VM 6.4 [95%CI 4.5–8.3] min vs HFNC 7.8 [95%CI 5.8–9.7] min, p = 0.046), while no similar effect was observed in the VM good responders.

Conclusions

HFNC did not exceed the efficacy of VM on exercise capacity in FILD, but it may be beneficial if the settings match. Further large studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

UMIN-CTR: UMIN000021901.

Effects of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with persistent hypercapnia after an acute COPD exacerbation: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Persistent hypercapnia after COPD exacerbation is associated with excess mortality and early rehospitalization. High Flow Nasal cannula (HFNC), may be theoretically an alternative to long-term noninvasive ventilation (NIV), since physiological studies have shown a reduction in PaCO2 level after few hours of treatment. In this clinical study we assessed the acceptability of HFNC and its effectiveness in reducing the level of PaCO₂ in patients recovering from an Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure (AHRF) episode. We also hypothesized that the response in CO₂ clearance is dependent on baseline level of hypercapnia.

METHODS

Fifty COPD patients recovering from an acute exacerbation and with persistent hypercapnia, despite having attained a stable pH (i.e. pH > 7,35 and PaCO₂ > 45 mmHg on 3 consecutive measurements), were enrolled and treated with HFNC for at least 8 h/day and during the nighttime RESULTS: HFNC was well tolerated with a global tolerance score of 4.0 ± 0.9. When patients were separated into groups with or without COPD/OSA overlap syndrome, the "pure" COPD patients showed a statistically significant response in terms of PaCO₂ decrease (p = 0.044). In addition, the subset of patients with a lower pH at enrolment were those who responded best in terms of CO₂ clearance (score test for trend of odds, p = 0.0038).

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC is able to significantly decrease the level of PaCO₂ after 72 h only in "pure" COPD patients, recovering from AHRF. No effects in terms of CO2 reduction were found in those with overlap syndrome. The present findings will help guide selection of the best target population and allow a sample size calculation for future long-term randomized control trials of HFNC vs NIV.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with www. clinicaltrials.gov with identifier number NCT03759457.

Effects of high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation on inspiratory effort in hypercapnic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preliminary study

Background

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is preferred as the initial ventilatory support to treat acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be an alternative method; however, the effects of HFNC in hypercapnic COPD are not well known. This preliminary study aimed at assessing the physiologic effects of HFNC at different flow rates in hypercapnic COPD and to compare it with NIV.

Methods

A prospective physiologic study enrolled 12 hypercapnic COPD patients who had initially required NIV, and were ventilated with HFNC at flow rates increasing from 10 to 50 L/min for 15 min in each step. The primary outcome was the effort to breathe estimated by a simplified esophageal pressure–time product (sPTP_es). The other studied variables were respiratory rate, oxygen saturation (SpO₂), and transcutaneous CO₂ pressure (PtcCO₂).

Results

Before NIV initiation, the median [interquartile range] pH was 7.36 [7.28–7.37] with a PaCO₂ of 51 [42–60] mmHg. sPTP_es per minute was significantly lower with HFNC at 30 L/min than 10 and 20 L/min (p < 0.001), and did not significantly differ with NIV (median inspiratory/expiratory positive airway pressure of 11 [10–12] and [5–5] cmH₂O, respectively). At 50 L/min, sPTPes per minute increased compared to 30 L/min half of the patients. Respiratory rate was lower (p = 0.003) and SpO₂ was higher (p = 0.028) with higher flows (30–50 L/min) compared to flow rate of 10 L/min and not different than with NIV. No significant differences in PtcCO₂ between NIV and HFNC at different flow rates were observed (p = 0.335).

Conclusions

Applying HFNC at 30 L/min for a short duration reduces inspiratory effort in comparison to 10 and 20 L/min, and resulted in similar effect than NIV delivered at modest levels of pressure support in hypercapnic COPD with mild to moderate exacerbation. Higher flow rates reduce respiratory rate but sometimes increase the effort to breathe. Using HFNC at 30 L/min in hypercapnic COPD patients should be further evaluated. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20160902001. Registered 31 August 2016, http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php?tp=regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=2008.

Dose Response to Transnasal Pulmonary Administration of Bronchodilator Aerosols via Nasal High-Flow Therapy in Adults with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing interest in transnasal pulmonary aerosol administration, but the dose-response relationship has not been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the accumulative bronchodilator dose at which patients with stable mild-to-moderate asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) achieve similar spirometry responses before and after bronchodilator tests using albuterol via a metered dose inhaler with a valved holding chamber (MDI + VHC).

METHOD

Adult patients who met ATS/ERS criteria for bronchodilator responses in pulmonary function laboratory were recruited and consented to participate. After a washout period, patients received escalating doubling dosages (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 mg) of albuterol in a total volume of 2 mL delivered by vibrating mesh nebulizer via a nasal cannula at 37°C with a flow rate of 15-20 L/min using a Venturi air entrainment device. Spirometry was measured at baseline and after each dose. Titration was stopped when an additional forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) improvement was <5%.

RESULTS

42 patients (16 males) with stable mild-to-moderate asthma (n = 29) and COPD (n = 13) were enrolled. FEV1 increment after a cumulative dose of 1.5 mg of albuterol via nasal cannula at 15-20 L/min was similar to 4 actuations of MDI + VHC (0.34 ± 0.18 vs. 0.34 ± 0.12 L, p = 0.878). Using ATS/ERS criteria of the bronchodilator test, 33.3% (14/42) and 69% (29/42) of patients responded to 0.5 and 1.5 mg of albuterol, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

With a nasal cannula at 15-20 L/min, transnasal pulmonary delivery of 1.5 mg albuterol resulted in similar bronchodilator response as 4 actuations of MDI + VHC.

Comparison of high flow nasal cannula with noninvasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with hypercapnia in preventing postextubation respiratory failure: A pilot randomized controlled trial

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been shown to improve extubation outcomes in patients with hypoxemia, but the role of HFNC in weaning patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with hypercapnia from invasive ventilation is unclear. We compared the effects of HFNC to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on postextubation vital signs and arterial blood gases (ABGs) among patients with COPD. Other outcomes included comfort scores, need for bronchoscopy, use of pulmonary medications, and chest physiotherapy. Forty-two COPD patients who had persistent hypercapnia at extubation were assigned randomly to receive HFNC (22) or NIV (20). Twenty patients in each group were enrolled for per-protocol analysis with regard to primary outcomes. Vital signs and ABGs before extubation were similar between groups. At 3 hr after extubation, pH in the NIV group was lower than HFNC group (7.42 ± 0.06 vs. 7.45 ± 0.05, p = 0.01). At 24 hr after extubation, patients' mean arterial pressure (82.97 ± 9.04 vs. 92.06 ± 11.11 mmHg, p = 0.05) and pH (7.42 ± 0.05 vs. 7.46 ± 0.03, p = 0.05) in the NIV group were lower than in the HFNC group. No significant differences were found at 48 hr after extubation. In the HFNC group, comfort scores were better (3.55 ± 2.01 vs. 5.15 ± 2.28, p = 0.02) and fewer patients needed bronchoscopy for secretion management within 48 hr after extubation (2/22 vs. 9/20, p = 0.03). HFNC is a potential alternative to NIV to wean hypercapnic COPD patients with regard to vital signs and ABGs, HFNC improved patients' comfort and secretion clearance.

Non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy: When to choose one over the other?

It has been found that high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) can reduce mortality of patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for de novo acute respiratory failure (ARF) as compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV). HFOT might therefore be considered as a first-line strategy of oxygenation in these patients. The beneficial effects of HFOT may be explained by its good tolerance and by physiological characteristics including delivery of high FiO₂ , positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) effect and continuous dead space washout contributing to decreased work of breathing. In contrast, NIV should be used cautiously in patients with de novo ARF due to high tidal volumes promoted by pressure support and that may potentially worsen pre-existing lung injury. Although recent studies have reported no benefit and even deleterious effects of NIV in immunocompromised patients with ARF, the experts have recommended its use as a first-line strategy. In patients with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure and respiratory acidosis, it has been clearly shown that NIV is the best strategy of oxygenation. However, HFOT seems able to reverse respiratory acidosis and further studies are needed to evaluate whether HFOT could represent an alternative to standard oxygen. Although NIV is recommended to treat ARF in post-operative patients or to prevent post-extubation respiratory failure in ICU, recent large-scale randomized studies suggest that HFOT could be equivalent to NIV. While recent recommendations have been established from studies comparing NIV with standard oxygen, new studies are needed to compare NIV versus HFOT in order to better define the appropriate indications for both treatments.