High-flow nasal cannula therapy for acute respiratory failure in patients with chest trauma: A single-center retrospective study

Injury ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 2507-2511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gen hua Mu ◽  
Xing Li ◽  
Zhong qian Lu ◽  
Shi Hu ◽  
Ping fa Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Chest Trauma ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Single Center ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula

scholarly journals High Flow Nasal Cannula as Support in Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Claudia Giugliano-Jaramillo ◽  
Josefina León ◽  
Cristobal Enriquez ◽  
Juan E. Keymer ◽  
Rodrigo Pérez-Araos
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Work Of Breathing ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula

Introduction: High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) is a novel technique for respiratory support that improves oxygenation. In some patients, it may reduce the work of breathing. In immunocompromised patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF), Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) is the main support recommended strategy, since invasive mechanical ventilation could increase mortality rates. NIV used for more than 48 hours may be associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Therefore HFNC seems like a respiratory support alternative. Objective: To describe clinical outcomes of immunocompromised patients with ARF HFNC-supported. Methods: Retrospective study in patients admitted with ARF and HFNC-supported. 25 adult patients were included, 21 pharmacologically and 4 non- pharmacologically immunosuppressed. Median age of the patients was 64 [60-76] years, APACHE II 15 [11-19], and PaO2:FiO2 218 [165-248]. Demographic information, origin of immunosuppression, Respiratory Rate (RR), Heart Rate (HR), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and PaO2:FiO2 ratio were extracted from clinical records of our HFNC local protocol. Data acquisition was performed before and after the first 24 hours of connection. In addition, the need for greater ventilatory support after HFNC, orotracheal intubation, in-hospital mortality and 90 days out-patients’ mortality was recorded. Results: Mean RR before the connection was 25±22 breaths/min and 22±4 breaths/min after the first 24 hours of HFNC use (95% CI; p=0.02). HR mean before connection to HFNC was 96±22 beats/min, and after, it was 86±15 beats/min (95%CI; p=0.008). Previous mean MAP was 86±15 mmHg, and after HFNC, it was 80±12 mmHg (95%CI; p=0.09); mean SpO2 after was 93±5% and before it was 95±4% (95% CI; p=0.13); and previous PaO2:FiO2 mean was 219±66, and after it was 324±110 (95%CI; p=0.52). In-hospital mortality was 28% and 90 days out-patients’ mortality was 32%. Conclusion: HFNC in immunosuppressed ARF subjects significantly decreases HR and RR, being apparently an effective alternative to decrease work of breathing. In-hospital mortality in ARF immunosuppressed patients was high even though respiratory support was used. Better studies are needed to define the role of HFNC-support in ARF.

High‐flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure in a non‐intensive geriatric setting

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 1652-1653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Luca Fimognari ◽  
Massimo Rizzo ◽  
Olga Cuccurullo ◽  
Giovanna Cristiano ◽  
Roberto Ricchio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula

scholarly journals High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure at Emergency Departments: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (7) ◽  
pp. 1508-1514
Author(s):  
Nicolas Marjanovic ◽  
Jérémy Guénézan ◽  
Jean-Pierre Frat ◽  
Olivier Mimoz ◽  
Arnaud W. Thille
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula

scholarly journals The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on the Outcome of Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. 693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng ◽  
Chang ◽  
Wang ◽  
Hsiao ◽  
Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
And Control

Background and objectives: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as a respiratory support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in immunocompromised patients. Thus, this meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on the outcomes in immunocompromised patients with ARF. The Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to November 2018. Materials and Methods: Only clinical studies comparing the effect of HFNC with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF were included. The outcome included the rate of intubation, mortality and length of stay (LOS). Results: A total of eight studies involving 1433 immunocompromised patients with ARF were enrolled. The pooled analysis showed that HFNC was significantly associated with a reduced intubation rate (risk ratio (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74–0.94, I2 = 0%). Among subgroup analysis, HFNC was associated with a lower intubation rate than COT (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75–0.95, I2 = 0%) and NIV (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.86, I2 = 0%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between HFNC and control groups in terms of 28-day mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58–1.04, I2 = 48%), and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73–1.05, I2 = 57%). The ICU and hospital LOS were similar between HFNC and control groups (ICU LOS: mean difference, 0.49 days; 95% CI, −0.25–1.23, I2 = 69%; hospital LOS: mean difference, −0.12 days; 95% CI, −1.86–1.61, I2 = 64%). Conclusions: Use of HFNC may decrease the intubation rate in immunocompromised patients with ARF compared with the control group, including COT and NIV. However, HFNC could not provide additional survival benefit or shorten the LOS. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document