Oxygen enrichment in clinical areas using high‐flow nasal oxygen and non‐invasive respiratory support are provided

Anaesthesia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. E. Kelly ◽  
M. Ralph ◽  
P. Henrys
Keyword(s):  
Oxygen Enrichment ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Non Invasive

scholarly journals FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e038002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvin Richards-Belle ◽  
Peter Davis ◽  
Laura Drikite ◽  
Richard Feltbower ◽  
Richard Grieve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
First Line ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Paediatric Critical Care

IntroductionEven though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children.Methods and analysisWe will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations.Ethics and disseminationThis master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England—Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN60048867

scholarly journals Protocolized Post-Extubation Respiratory Support to prevent reintubation: protocol and statistical analysis plan for a clinical trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Dale Casey ◽  
Erin R Vaughan ◽  
Bradley D Lloyd ◽  
Peter A Bilas ◽  
Eric J Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Risk Patients

IntroductionFollowing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation, nearly one in seven critically ill adults requires reintubation. Reintubation is independently associated with increased mortality. Postextubation respiratory support (non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula applied at the time of extubation) has been reported in small-to-moderate-sized trials to reduce reintubation rates among hypercapnic patients, high-risk patients without hypercapnia and low-risk patients without hypercapnia. It is unknown whether protocolised provision of postextubation respiratory support to every patient undergoing extubation would reduce the overall reintubation rate, compared with usual care.Methods and analysisThe Protocolized Post-Extubation Respiratory Support (PROPER) trial is a pragmatic, cluster cross-over trial being conducted between 1 October 2017 and 31 March 2019 in the medical intensive care unit of Vanderbilt University Medical Center. PROPER compares usual care versus protocolized post-extubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol that advises the provision of non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula based on patient characteristics). For the duration of the trial, the unit is divided into two clusters. One cluster receives protocolised support and the other receives usual care. Each cluster crosses over between treatment group assignments every 3 months. All adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation are enrolled except those who received less than 12 hours of mechanical ventilation, have ‘Do Not Intubate’ orders, or have been previously reintubated during the hospitalisation. The anticipated enrolment is approximately 630 patients. The primary outcome is reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03288311.

scholarly journals High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygenation

JMS SKIMS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tajamul Hussain Shah ◽  
Suhail Mantoo ◽  
Rafi Ahmad Jan
Keyword(s):  
Face Mask ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Low Flow ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Flow Devices

High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygenation The current pandemic of COVID-19 caused by novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tested the healthcare infrastructure throughout the globe at all possible levels. Early reports suggest about 20% of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 require hospitalization and 5-8% require admission to intensive care unit (ICU) due to severe disease.Supplementation of oxygen provided by various conventional oxygen therapy (COT) devices (like nasal prongs, face mask, venture mask or non-rebreather mask) may not be sufficient in cases of worsening respiratory failure. One form of escalating respiratory support in such patients is a high flow nasal oxygenation device. High flow nasal cannula oxygenation (HFNC) is a form of non invasive respiratory support. It acts as a bridge between low flow devices and non invasive ventilation and may reduce the need for intubation.

scholarly journals Limitations of the ARDS criteria during high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation: Evidence from critically ill COVID-19 patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hultström ◽  
Ola Hellkvist ◽  
Lucian Covaciu ◽  
Filip Fredén ◽  
Robert Frithiof ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
High Flow ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Arterial Oxygen ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Steady State Condition ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
High Flow Oxygen

Abstract Introduction The ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired oxygen fraction (PaO2/FIO2) during invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is used as criteria to grade the severity of respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the SARS-CoV2 pandemic the use of PaO2/FIO2 ratio has been increasingly used in non-invasive respiratory support such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The grading of hypoxemia in non-invasively ventilated patients is uncertain. The main hypothesis, investigated in this study, was that the PaO2/FIO2 ratio does not change when switching between MV, NIV and HFNC. Methods This was a sub-study of a single-center prospective observational study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden for critical COVID-19. In a steady state condition, the PaO2/FIO2 ratio was recorded before and after any change between two of the studied respiratory support techniques (i.e., HFNC, NIV and MV). Results A total of 148 patients were included in the present analysis. We find that any change in respiratory support from or to HFNC caused a significant change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio (up to 48 mmHg, from HFNC to MV). Changes in respiratory support between NIV and MV did not show consistent change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio. In patients classified as mild to moderate ARDS during MV, the change from HFNC to MV showed a variable increase in PaO2/FIO2 ratio ranging between 52 and 140 mmHg (median of 127 mm Hg). This made prediction of ARDS severity during MV from the apparent ARDS grade during HFNC impossible. Conclusion HFNC is associated with lower PaO2/FIO2 ratio than either NIV or MV in the same patient, while NIV and MV provided similar PaO2/FIO2 and thus ARDS grade by Berlin definition. The large variation of PaO2/FIO2 ratio precludes using ARDS grade as a measure of pulmonary damage during HFNC.

scholarly journals ERS Clinical Practice Guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 2101574
Author(s):  
Simon Oczkowski ◽  
Begüm Ergan ◽  
Lieuwe Bos ◽  
Michelle Chatwin ◽  
Miguel Ferrer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Extubation Failure ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Non Invasive

BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used non-invasive form of respiratory support in acute settings, however evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF).Materials and methodologyThe European Respiratory Society Task Force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The Task Force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methods to summarise evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF.ResultsThe Task Force developed 8 conditional recommendations, suggesting using: 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxemic ARF, 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxemic ARF, 3)HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV, 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications, 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications, 6) HFNC over COT in non-surgical patients at low risk of extubation failure, 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV, 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic ARF.ConclusionsHFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of non-invasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

Efficacy of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure versus Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula as a Primary Mode of Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants with RDS

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 246-250
Author(s):  
Qaiser Zaman ◽  
Syeda Shireen Gul ◽  
Muhammad Hayat Khan ◽  
Sehrish Noor
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Airway Pressure ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Supplementary Oxygen ◽  
Non Invasive

Objective: To determine the efficacy of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) versus heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) as a primary mode of respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress. Methodology: This randomized controlled trial study was conducted at in-patient department of neonatology (Nursery & NICU) of Pakistan Insitute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) from July 2020 to Dec 2020. A total of 280 neonates randomly divided (140 in each study group) of both genders, with gestational age between 28-34 weeks and having mild-to-moderate respiratory distress within 1st 6 hours of birth requiring non-invasive ventilation were enrolled. Neonates in NCPAP Group (n=140) were given NCPAP whereas neonates in HHHFNC Group (n=140) were given HHHFNC. The efficacy of both groups were compared on the basis of treatment failure within 1st 3 days, total duration (hours) of non-invasive ventilator (NIV) required and total duration (hours) of supplementary oxygen required. Results: Overall, mean gestational age was noted to be 30.0+6.4 weeks. There were 144 (51.4%) neonates with birth weight between 1 to 1.4 kg, 90 (32.1%) between 1.5 to 1.9 kg and 46 (16.4%0 between 2.0 to 2.4 kg. Treatment failure was noted in 67 (47.6%) neonates in NCAP group while HHHFNC group reported 73 (52.4%) neonates with treatment failure (p=0.4733). No significant difference was observed in mean total duration of NIV support required (p=0.2598) or mean total duration of supplementary oxygen (p=0.1946) in between study groups. Conclusion: HHHFNC had similar efficacy when compared to NCPAP among neonates with RDS. In comparison to NCPAP, HHHFNC could be a simple, well-tolerated and effective alternative in terms of respiratory support. No major difference in terms of complication was observed between both treatment approaches.

scholarly journals Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract: an analysis of relative risks from oxygen delivery systems

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Hamilton ◽  
F Gregson ◽  
D Arnold ◽  
S Sheikh ◽  
K Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Oxygen Delivery ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Positive Pressure ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Aerosol Emission ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Aerosol Emissions

BackgroundRisk of aerosolisation of SARS-CoV-2 directly informs organisation of acute healthcare and PPE guidance. Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are widely used modes of oxygen delivery and respiratory support for patients with severe COVID-19, with both considered as high risk aerosol generating procedures. However, there are limited high quality experimental data characterising aerosolisation during oxygen delivery and respiratory support.MethodsHealthy volunteers were recruited to breathe, speak, and cough in ultra-clean, laminar flow theatres followed by using oxygen and respiratory support systems. Aerosol emission was measured using two discrete methodologies, simultaneously. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 were also recruited and had aerosol emissions measured during breathing, speaking, and coughing.FindingsIn healthy volunteers (n = 25 subjects; 531 measures), CPAP (with exhalation port filter) produced less aerosols than breathing, speaking and coughing (even with large >50L/m facemask leaks). HFNO did emit aerosols, but the majority of these particles were generated from the HFNO machine, not the patient. HFNO-generated particles were small (<1μm), passing from the machine through the patient and to the detector without coalescence with respiratory aerosol, thereby unlikely to carry viral particles. Coughing was associated with the highest aerosol emissions with a peak concentration at least 10 times greater the mean concentration generated from speaking or breathing. Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (n = 8 subjects; 56 measures) had similar size distributions to healthy volunteers.InterpretationIn healthy volunteers, CPAP is associated with less aerosol emission than breathing, speaking or coughing. Aerosol emission from the respiratory tract does not appear to be increased by HFNO. Although direct comparisons are complex, cough appears to generate significant aerosols in a size range compatible with airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. As a consequence, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosolisation is likely to be high in all areas where patients with Covid-19 are coughing. Guidance on personal protective equipment policy should reflect these updated risks.FundingNIHR-UKRI Rapid COVID call (COV003), Wellcome Trust GW4-CAT Doctoral Training Scheme (FH), MRC CARP Fellowship(JD, MR/T005114/1). Natural Environment Research Council grant (BB, NE/P018459/1)Research in contextEvidence before this studyPubMed was searched from inception until 10/1/21 using the terms ‘aerosol’, and variations of ‘non-invasive positive pressure ventilation’ and ‘high-flow nasal oxygen therapy’. Studies were included if they measured aerosol generated from volunteers or patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) or high flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO), or provided experimental evidence on a simulated human setting. One study was identified (Gaeckle et al, 2020) which measured aerosol emission with one methodology (APS) but was limited by high background concentration of aerosol and a low number of participants (n = 10).Added value of this studyThis study used multiple methodologies to measure aerosol emission from the respiratory tract before and during CPAP and high-flow nasal oxygen, in an ultra-clean, laminar flow theatre with near-zero background aerosol and recruited patients with COVID-19 to ensure similar aerosol distributions. We conclude that there is negligible aerosol generation with CPAP, that aerosol emission from HFNO is from the machine and not the patient, coughing emits aerosols consistent with airborne transmission of SARS CoV2 and that healthy volunteers are a reasonable proxy for COVID-19 patients.Implications of all the available evidenceCPAP and HFNO should not be considered high risk aerosol generating procedures, based on our study and that of Gaeckle et al. Recorded aerosol emission from HFNO stems from the machine. Cough remains a significant aerosol risk. PPE guidance should be updated to ensure medical staff are protected with appropriate PPE in situations when patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 are likely to cough.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document