Safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula therapy in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure – a retrospective audit

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amin Golmohamad ◽  
Rachel Johnston ◽  
Karen Hay ◽  
George Tay
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Retrospective Audit ◽  
Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

scholarly journals High-flow nasal cannula therapy for initial oxygen administration in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: study protocol of randomised controlled unblinded trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000853
Author(s):  
Asem Alnajada ◽  
Bronagh Blackwood ◽  
Abdulmajeed Mobrad ◽  
Adeel Akhtar ◽  
Murali Shyamsundar
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Open Access ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Acute Type ◽  
Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure ◽  
Oxygen Administration ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Initial Oxygen ◽  
Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

IntroductionAcute respiratory failure is a common clinical condition accounting for nearly 116 000 admissions in the UK hospitals. Acute type 2 respiratory failure is also called acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) and characterised by an elevated arterial CO2 level of >6 kPa due to pump failure. Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is the most common cause of AHRF. High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) is a new oxygen delivery system that uses an oxygen-air blender to deliver flow rates of up to 60 L/min. The gas is delivered humidified and heated to the patient via wide-bore nasal cannula.Methods and analysisWe hypothesised that HFNC as the initial oxygen administration method will reduce the number of patients with AHRF requiring non-invasive ventilation in patients at 6 hours post intervention when compared with low-flow nasal oxygen (LFO). A randomised single-centre unblinded controlled trial is designed to test our hypothesis. The trial will compare two oxygen administration methods, HFNT versus LFO. Patients will be randomised to one of the two arms if they fulfil the eligibility criteria. The sample size is 82 adult patients (41 HFNT and 41 LFO) presenting to the emergency department.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (REC reference: 20/NI/0049). Dissemination will be achieved in several ways: (1) the findings will be presented at national and international meetings with open-access abstracts online and (2) in accordance with the open-access policies proposed by the leading research funding bodies we aim to publish the findings in high-quality peer-reviewed open-access journals.Trial registration numberThe trial was prospectively registered at the clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT04640948) on 20 November 2020.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Yongkang Huang ◽  
Wei Lei ◽  
Wenyu Zhang ◽  
Jian-an Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document