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 SpO2were 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.

High-flow nasal therapy vs standard oxygen during breaks off noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Nava, Stefano;Mega, Chiara;Pisani, Lara
2018

Abstract

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 SpO2were 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.
Spoletini, Giulia; Mega, Chiara; Pisani, Lara; Alotaibi, Mona; Khoja, Alia; Price, Lori Lyn; Blasi, Francesco; Nava, Stefano; Hill, Nicholas S.*
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/649125
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 22
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 24
social impact