­
­
­
­

Inventi Impact: Anaesthesiology

Articles

  • Inventi:haa/14770/14
    Nasal Highâ??flow Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: Effect on Functional\nand Subjective Respiratory Parameters Compared to Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Non-invasive\nVentilation (NIV)
    01-Jan-1970 Research 2015 : January - March
    Norbert Schwabbauer, Bjorn Berg, Gunnar Blumenstock, Michael Haap, Jurgen Hetzel, Reimer Riessen

    Background: Aim of the study was to compare the short-term effects of oxygen therapy via a high-flow nasal\ncannula (HFNC) on functional and subjective respiratory parameters in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure\nin comparison to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard treatment via a Venturi mask.\nMethods: Fourteen patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure were treated with HFNC (FiO2 0.6, gas flow\n55 l/min), NIV (FiO2 0.6, PEEP 5 cm H2O Hg, tidal volume 6ââ?¬â??8 ml/kg ideal body weight,) and Venturi mask (FiO2 0.6,\noxygen flow 15 l/min,) in a randomized order for 30 min each. Data collection included objective respiratory and\ncirculatory parameters as well as a subjective rating of dyspnea and discomfort by the patients on a 10-point scale.\nIn a final interview, all three methods were comparatively evaluated by each patient using a scale from 1 (=very\ngood) to 6 (=failed) and the patients were asked to choose one method for further treatment.\nResults: PaO2 was highest under NIV (129 Ã?± 38 mmHg) compared to HFNC (101 Ã?± 34 mmHg, p <0.01 vs. NIV) and\nVM (85 Ã?± 21 mmHg, p <0.001 vs. NIV, p <0.01 vs. HFNC, ANOVA). All other functional parameters showed no\nrelevant differences. In contrast, dyspnea was significantly better using a HFNC (2.9 Ã?± 2.1, 10-point Borg scale)\ncompared to NIV (5.0 Ã?± 3.3, p <0.05), whereas dyspnea rating under HFNC and VM (3.3 Ã?± 2.3) was not significantly\ndifferent. A similar pattern was found when patients rated their overall discomfort on the 10 point scale: HFNC\n2.7 Ã?± 1.8, VM 3.1 Ã?± 2.8 (ns vs. HFNC), NIV 5.4 Ã?± 3.1 (p <0.05 vs. HFNC). In the final evaluation patients gave the best\nratings to HFNC 2.3 Ã?± 1.4, followed by VM 3.2 Ã?± 1.7 (ns vs. HFNC) and NIV 4.5 Ã?± 1.7 (p <0.01 vs. HFNC and p <0.05\nvs. VM). For further treatment 10 patients chose HFNC, three VM and one NIV.\nConclusions: In hypoxic respiratory failure HFNC offers a good balance between oxygenation and comfort\ncompared to NIV and Venturi mask and seems to be well tolerated by patients.

    How to Cite this Article
    CC Compliant Citation: Schwabbauer et al.: Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on\nfunctional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). BMC\nAnesthesiology 2014 14:66, doi:10.1186/1471-2253-14-66, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
    Download Full Text