scholarly journals The Considerations and Controversies in Using High-Flow Nasal Oxygen with Self-Prone Positioning in SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Kieran P. Nunn ◽  
Murray J. Blackstock ◽  
Ryan Ellis ◽  
Gauhar Sheikh ◽  
Alastair Morgan ◽  
...  

Evidence exists for the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in the general critical care population for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. There is discord between guidelines for hypoxemia management in COVID-19. Both noninvasive management and intubation present risk to patients and staff and potentially overwhelm hospital mechanical ventilator capacity. The use of HFNO has been particularly controversial in the UK, with oxygen infrastructure failure. We discuss our experience of managing COVID-19 with HFNO and awake self-prone positioning. We focus upon the less-usual case of an eighteen-year-old female to illustrate the type of patient where HFNO may be used when perhaps earlier intubation once was. It is important to consider the wider implications of intubation. We have used HFNO as a bridge to intubation or as definitive management. As we await clinical trial evidence, HFNO with self-prone positioning has a role in COVID-19 for certain patients. Response parameters must be set and reviewed, oxygen infrastructure considered, and potential staff droplet exposure minimised.

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Bellone ◽  
Adriano Basile

This paper reports the authors’ preliminary experience with three patients affected by severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to bilateral pneumonia placed in a prone position in Emergency Medicine Ward during application of high flow oxygen nasal cannula.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175346662095645
Author(s):  
Ricardo Andino ◽  
Gema Vega ◽  
Sandra Karina Pacheco ◽  
Nuria Arevalillo ◽  
Ana Leal ◽  
...  

Background: The benefits of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as primary intervention in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are still a matter in debate. Our objective was to compare HFNC therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in the prevention of endotracheal intubation in this group of patients. Methods: An open-label, controlled and single-centre clinical trial was conducted in patients with severe AHRF, defined by a PaO2/FIO2 ratio ⩽200, to compare HFNC with a control group (CG) treated by COT delivered through a face mask, with the need to perform intubation as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included tolerance of the HFNC device and to look for the predictive factors for intubation in these patients. Results: A total of 46 patients were included (22 in the COT group and 24 in the HFNC group) 48% of whom needed intubation: 63% in the COT group and 33% in the HFNC group, with significant differences both in intention to treat [χ2 = 4.2; p = 0.04, relative risk (RR) = 0.5; confidence interval (CI) 95%: 0.3–1.0] and also in treatment analysis (χ2 = 4.7; p = 0.03; RR = 0.5; IC 95%: 0.3–0.9) We obtained a number needed to treat (NNT) = 3 patients treated to avoid an intubation. Intubation occurred significantly later in the HFNC group. Estimated PaO2/FIO2, respiratory rate and dyspnea were significantly better in the HFNC group. Patients treated with HFNC who required intubation presented significant worsening after the first 8 h, as compared with non-intubated HFNC group patients. Mortality was 22% with no differences. The HFNC group patients were hospitalized for almost half of the time in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the ward, with significantly less hospital length of stay. A total of 14 patients in the HFNC group (58%) complained of excessive heat and 17% of noise; 3 patients did not tolerate HFNC. Conclusion: Patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who tolerate HFNC present a significantly lower need for endotracheal intubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Clinical Trial Register EUDRA CT number: 2012-001671-36 The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.


2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (8) ◽  
pp. 908-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Duprez ◽  
Arnaud Bruyneel ◽  
Shahram Machayekhi ◽  
Marie Droguet ◽  
Yves Bouckaert ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cary Amiel G. Villanueva ◽  
Marie Gene D. Cruz ◽  
Lia M. Palileo-Villanueva

KEY FINDINGSVery low-quality evidence suggests lower mortality (based on five observational studies) but higher failurerate of respiratory support (based on two observational studies) in COVID-19 patients given high-flow nasalcannula (HFNC) oxygen compared with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygenation therapy.Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are urgently needed in this area.• Respiratory failure accounts for about half of deaths in patients with COVID-19.• High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy reduces the need for escalating respiratory support and improvespatient comfort compared with conventional oxygen therapy among those with acute respiratory failure.• Mortality was consistently lower in COVID-19 patients who received HFNC rather than NIV or conventionaloxygen therapy (COT) across 5 very low-quality retrospective observational studies from China.• Several international guidelines recommend the use of HFNC oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients whodevelop acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, local guidelines from the Philippine Society forMicrobiology and Infectious Diseases (PSMID) and the Philippine College of Chest Physicians (PCCP) recommendagainst HFNC due to risks of transmission and paucity of direct evidence for efficacy.• Additional infection control precautions, i.e. wearing a surgical mask over the cannula, and locating in a negativepressure room, are recommended whenever using HFNC or NIV.• There are at least two ongoing trials due to be completed by the second quarter of 2021 comparingHFNC oxygenation with NIV or COT in COVID-19 patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document