TY - JOUR
T1 - High-flow nasal therapy vs standard oxygen during breaks off noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure
T2 - A pilot randomized controlled trial
AU - Spoletini, Giulia
AU - Mega, Chiara
AU - Pisani, Lara
AU - Alotaibi, Mona
AU - Khoja, Alia
AU - Price, Lori Lyn
AU - Blasi, Francesco
AU - Nava, Stefano
AU - Hill, Nicholas S.
PY - 2018/12/1
Y1 - 2018/12/1
N2 - Purpose: To assess the role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) compared to standard oxygen (SO) as complementary therapy to non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: Multicenter trial including patients (n = 54) anticipated to receive NIV for ≥24 h due to acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to SO or HFNT during breaks off NIV. Primary outcome was total time on and off NIV. Secondary outcomes were comfort and dyspnea, respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), tolerance and side effects. Results: Total time per patient on NIV (1315 vs 1441 min) and breaks (1362 vs 1196 min), and mean duration of each break (520 vs 370 min) were similar in the HFNT and SO arms (p >.05). Comfort score was higher on HFNT than on SO (8.3 ± 2.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.3, p =.001). Dyspnea, RR and SpO2 were similar in the two arms, but the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO during breaks did not occur with HFNT. Conclusion: Compared to SO, HFNT did not reduce time on NIV. However, it was more comfortable and the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO did not occur with HFNT. Therefore, HFNT could be a suitable alternative to SO during breaks off NIV.
AB - Purpose: To assess the role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) compared to standard oxygen (SO) as complementary therapy to non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: Multicenter trial including patients (n = 54) anticipated to receive NIV for ≥24 h due to acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to SO or HFNT during breaks off NIV. Primary outcome was total time on and off NIV. Secondary outcomes were comfort and dyspnea, respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), tolerance and side effects. Results: Total time per patient on NIV (1315 vs 1441 min) and breaks (1362 vs 1196 min), and mean duration of each break (520 vs 370 min) were similar in the HFNT and SO arms (p >.05). Comfort score was higher on HFNT than on SO (8.3 ± 2.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.3, p =.001). Dyspnea, RR and SpO2 were similar in the two arms, but the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO during breaks did not occur with HFNT. Conclusion: Compared to SO, HFNT did not reduce time on NIV. However, it was more comfortable and the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO did not occur with HFNT. Therefore, HFNT could be a suitable alternative to SO during breaks off NIV.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054724447&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054724447&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.10.004
DO - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.10.004
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85054724447
VL - 48
SP - 418
EP - 425
JO - Journal of Critical Care
JF - Journal of Critical Care
SN - 0883-9441
ER -