Effects of high flow nasal cannula on the coordination between swallowing and breathing in postextubation patients, a randomized crossover study

 

by Pornpan Rattanajiajaroen and Napplika Kongpolprom 

 

Critical Care volume 25, Article number: 365 (2021)

 

Background

Timing of swallows in relation to respiratory phases is associated with aspiration events. Oxygen therapy possibly affects the timing of swallows, which may alter airway protective mechanisms.

Objectives

To compare the coordination between swallowing and respiration during water infusion in post-extubation patients using high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) with the coordination in those using low flow nasal oxygen (LFNO).

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled crossover study in post-extubation patients. The patients extubated within 48 h were randomly assigned to two groups, namely, HFNO and LFNO. The eligible patients in each group received either HFNO with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) 0.35, flow 50 L per minute (LPM), and temperature 34 °C or LFNO 5 LPM for 5 min. The coordination between swallowing and respiration was observed during continuous infusion of 10-ml water one minute three times. Respiratory phases and swallowing were monitored using electrocardiogram (EKG)-derived respiratory signals and submental electromyography (EMG), respectively. The swallowing frequency and timing of swallows in relation to respiratory phases were recorded. The coordination between swallowing and respiration was classified into 4 patterns, namely I, E, I-E, and E-I swallows. (I; inspiration and E; expiration) Subsequently, after a 5-min washout period, the patients were switched to the other type of oxygen therapy using the same procedure. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 22 patients with a mean age of 56 years were enrolled in the study. The major indication for invasive mechanical ventilation was pneumonia with a median duration of endotracheal intubation of 2.5 days. The median total swallowing numbers (three minutes) were 18.5 times in the HFNO period and 21 times in the LFNO period (p = NS). The most common swallowing pattern was E-swallow. The patients using HFNO had higher numbers of E-swallow pattern (74.3% in HFNO vs 67.6% in LFNO; p = 0.048) and lower numbers of I-swallow pattern (14.3% in HFNO vs 23.1% in LFNO; p = 0.044). The numbers of other swallowing patterns were not different between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Compared with LFNO, HFNO significantly increased the E-swallow and decreased the I-swallow in post-extubation patients. The findings indicated that HFNO might reduce a risk of aspiration during the post-extubation period.

 

 

High-flow nasal oxygen cannula vs. noninvasive mechanical ventilation to prevent reintubation in sepsis: a randomized controlled trial

 

by Surat Tongyoo, Porntipa Tantibundit, Kiattichai Daorattanachai, Tanuwong Viarasilpa, Chairat Permpikul and Suthipol Udompanturak 

 

Annals of Intensive Care volume 11, Article number: 135 (2021)

 

Background

High-flow nasal oxygen cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients. However, their efficacy in post-extubated sepsis patients remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of HFNC vs. NIV to prevent reintubation in post-extubated sepsis patients.

Methods

We conducted a single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial at the medical intensive care unit of Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Sepsis patients who had been intubated, recovered, and passed the spontaneous breathing trial were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HFNC or NIV support immediately after extubation. The primary outcome was rate of reintubation at 72 h after extubation.

Results

Between 1st October 2017 and 31st October 2019, 222 patients were enrolled and 112 were assigned to the HFNC group and 110 to the NIV group. Both groups were well matched in baseline characteristics. The median [IQR] age of the HFNC group was 66 [50–77] vs. 65.5 [54–77] years in the NIV group. The most common causes of intubation at admission were shock-related respiratory failure (57.1% vs. 55.5%) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (34.8% vs. 40.9%) in the HFNC and NIV groups, respectively. The duration of mechanical ventilation before extubation was 5 [3–8] days in the HFNC group vs. 5 [3–9] days in the NIV group. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome: 20/112 (17.9%) in the HFNC group required reintubation at 72 h compared to 20/110 (18.2%) in the NIV group [relative risk (RR) 0.99: 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.70–1.39); P = 0.95]. The 28-day mortality was not different: 8/112 (7.1%) with HFNC vs. 10/110 (9.1%) with NIV (RR 0.88: 95% CI (0.57–1.37); P = 0.59).

Conclusions

Among sepsis patients, there was no difference between HFNC and NIV in the prevention of reintubation at 72 h after extubation.

Noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal cannula oxygen for preoxygenation before intubation in patients with obesity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal cannula oxygen for preoxygenation before intubation in patients with obesity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

 

by Maeva Rodriguez, Stéphanie Ragot, Rémi Coudroy, Jean-Pierre Quenot, Philippe Vignon, Jean-Marie Forel, Alexandre Demoule, Jean-Paul Mira, Jean-Damien Ricard, Saad Nseir, Gwenhael Colin, Bertrand Pons, Pierre-Eric Danin, Jérome Devaquet, Gwenael Prat, Hamid Merdji…

 

Annals of Intensive Care volume 11, Article number: 114, Published: 22 July 2021

 

Background

Critically ill patients with obesity may have an increased risk of difficult intubation and subsequent severe hypoxemia. We hypothesized that pre-oxygenation with noninvasive ventilation before intubation as compared with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen may decrease the risk of severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity.

Methods

Post hoc subgroup analysis of critically ill patients with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg·m−2) from a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen before intubation of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mm Hg). The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (pulse oximetry < 80%) during the intubation procedure.

Results

Among the 313 patients included in the original trial, 91 (29%) had obesity with a mean body mass index of 35 ± 5 kg·m−2. Patients with obesity were more likely to experience an episode of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure than patients without obesity: 34% (31/91) vs. 22% (49/222); difference, 12%; 95% CI 1 to 23%; P = 0.03. Among patients with obesity, 40 received preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and 51 with high-flow nasal oxygen. Severe hypoxemia occurred in 15 patients (37%) with noninvasive ventilation and 16 patients (31%) with high-flow nasal oxygen (difference, 6%; 95% CI − 13 to 25%; P = 0.54). The lowest pulse oximetry values during intubation procedure were 87% [interquartile range, 77–93] with noninvasive ventilation and 86% [78–92] with high-flow nasal oxygen (P = 0.98). After multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity were intubation difficulty scale > 5 points and respiratory primary failure as reason for admission.

Conclusions

Patients with obesity and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure had an increased risk of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure as compared to patients without obesity. However, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation may not reduce this risk compared with high-flow nasal oxygen.

Trial registration Clinical trial number: NCT02668458 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

 

 

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study*

 

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study*

 

by Xia, Jingen; Zhang, Yi; Ni, Lan; Chen, Lei; Zhou, Changzhi; Gao, Chang; Wu, Xiaojing; Duan, Jun; Xie, Jungang; Guo, Qiang; Zhao, Jianping; Hu, Yi; Cheng, Zhenshun; Zhan, Qingyuan

Critical Care Medicine: November 2020 - Volume 48 - Issue 11 - p e1079-e1086

Objectives:  

An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Design:

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Setting: Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China. Patients: Forty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen. Interventions: None.

Measurements and Main Results:

Mean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/Fio2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.

Conclusions:

High-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.

Physiological effects of high-flow oxygen in tracheostomized patients

Physiological effects of high-flow oxygen in tracheostomized patients

by Daniele Natalini, Domenico L. Grieco, Maria Teresa Santantonio, Lucrezia Mincione, Flavia Toni, Gian Marco Anzellotti, Davide Eleuteri, Pierluigi Di Giannatale, Massimo Antonelli and Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore

Annals of Intensive Care volume 9, Article number: 114 (2019)

Background

High-flow oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (HFOTNASAL) increases airway pressure, ameliorates oxygenation and reduces work of breathing. High-flow oxygen can be delivered through tracheostomy (HFOTTRACHEAL), but its physiological effects have not been systematically described. We conducted a cross-over study to elucidate the effects of increasing flow rates of HFOTTRACHEAL on gas exchange, respiratory rate and endotracheal pressure and to compare lower airway pressure produced by HFOTNASAL and HFOTTRACHEAL.

Methods

Twenty-six tracheostomized patients underwent standard oxygen therapy through a conventional heat and moisture exchanger, and then HFOTTRACHEAL through a heated humidifier, with gas flow set at 10, 30 and 50 L/min. Each step lasted 30 min; gas flow sequence during HFOTTRACHEAL was randomized. In five patients, measurements were repeated during HFOTTRACHEAL before tracheostomy decannulation and immediately after during HFOTNASAL. In each step, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate, and tracheal pressure were measured.

Results

During HFOTTRACHEAL, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and tracheal expiratory pressure slightly increased proportionally to gas flow. The mean [95% confidence interval] expiratory pressure raise induced by 10-L/min increase in flow was 0.2 [0.1–0.2] cmH2O (ρ = 0.77, p < 0.001). Compared to standard oxygen, HFOTTRACHEAL limited the negative inspiratory swing in tracheal pressure; at 50 L/min, but not with other settings, HFOTTRACHEAL increased mean tracheal expiratory pressure by (mean difference [95% CI]) 0.4 [0.3–0.6] cmH2O, peak tracheal expiratory pressure by 0.4 [0.2–0.6] cmH2O, improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio by 40 [8–71] mmHg, and reduced respiratory rate by 1.9 [0.3–3.6] breaths/min without PaCO2 changes. As compared to HFOTTRACHEAL, HFOTNASAL produced higher tracheal mean and peak expiratory pressure (at 50 L/min, mean difference [95% CI]: 3 [1–5] cmH2O and 4 [1–7] cmH2O, respectively).

Conclusions

As compared to standard oxygen, 50 L/min of HFOTTRACHEAL are needed to improve oxygenation, reduce respiratory rate and provide small degree of positive airway expiratory pressure, which, however, is significantly lower than the one produced by HFOTNASAL.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Critical Care: 2019 23:180: Published: 17 May 2019

Background

The effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients after planned extubation remains inconclusive. We aimed to perform a rigorous and comprehensive systematic meta-analysis to robustly quantify the benefits of HFNC for patients after planned extubation by investigating postextubation respiratory failure and other outcomes.

Method

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2018. Two researchers screened studies and collected the data independently. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies were included. The main outcome was postextubation respiratory failure.

Results

Ten studies (seven RCTs and three crossover studies; HFNC group: 856 patients; Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group: 852 patients) were included. Compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41, 0.92; z = 2.38; P = 0.02) and respiratory rates (standardized mean differences (SMD), − 0.70; 95% CI, − 1.16, − 0.25; z = 3.03; P = 0.002) and increase PaO₂ (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.04, 0.56; z = 2.23; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in reintubation rate, length of ICU and hospital stay, comfort score, PaCO₂, mortality in ICU and hospital, and severe adverse events between HFNC and COT group.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure and respiratory rates, increase PaO₂, and be safely administered in patients after planned extubation. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm our results.