+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Response to the letter to the editor “Nasal high-flow versus non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic hypercapnic COPD” [Response to letter]

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Dear editor We thank both authors for their thoughtful remarks to our study. We would like to point out that the trial was not formally designed as a non-inferiority study, but “to provide an estimate of the difference between the devices regarding pCO2 change”. This choice followed lengthy discussions with the statistics experts of this institution acknowledging the arbitrary choice of a margin (for pCO2 reduction) of non-inferiority or equivalence. Defining these margins prior to the study would have had to be an estimate and we had aimed at a margin of 5mmHg for pCO2 derived from prior NIV studies. Instead of choosing arbitrary margins, we generated data to compare non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and nasal high flow (NHF) in stable hypercapnic COPD patients and concur with Elshof and Duiverman that this is an important topic due to lack of sufficient studies to date. At the level of hospital or general policy, the authors are correct in their remark that non-inferiority in effectiveness does not suggest the need to make any changes unless other benefits are demonstrated. Our study suggests approximate equivalence of NIV and NHF in relevant outcomes, albeit not formally. Hence, at the level of choice for individual patients, such results are highly relevant since a larger variety of therapy options allows for better consideration of personal preferences. The observation that the proportion “of drop-outs is comparable between groups” merely indicates that there is no strong preference in the study population as a whole for a particular device, but does not preclude strong individual predilections. In this study, an important feature was the fact, that blood gas measurements were taken hours after the termination of ventilation support treatment. Thus, the differences in pCO2 were somewhat smaller for both types of device compared to an in-hospital situation where blood gases are measured shortly after termination of ventilatory support.1 An additional graphical illustration of the pCO2 before and following each device arm is shown in Figure 1. However, the pCO2 decrease in our study was comparable to most cited studies by other authors despite slightly different pressure support values and reduced usage times. Figure 1 Partial pressure of carbon dioxide in capillary blood (pCO2) is shown for each device and time point. Whiskers depict 95% confidence intervals. Elshof and Duiverman are right to note that 20l/min is not what would have been chosen if one were to start a study today. However, at the time the study was conceived, machines delivering more than 20l/min were not available and thus we had to stick to the protocol and provide all patients with the same NHF device. The newer models of NHF deliver higher flows and as cited by Elshof and Duiverman also have the potential to lower pCO2 more efficiently. This point indicates, as stated in our discussion, that the effect demonstrated here is most likely a conservative view comparing an early NHF device to standard NIV.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Nasal High-flow versus non-invasive ventilation in stable hypercapnic COPD: a preliminary report

          Background There are no data available about effectiveness of Nasal High-flow (NHF)in chronic respiratory insufficiency. Methods Eleven COPD patients with stable hypercapnia were adjusted to NHF-system with a flow of 20 l/min. After six weeks patients were switched to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for another six weeks period. Results NHF led to significant decreases in resting pCO2. Between the devices we found no differences in pCO2 levels. Conclusions NHF may thus be an alternative treatment device in stable hypercapnic COPD patients.

            Author and article information

            Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
            Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
            International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
            09 September 2019
            : 14
            : 2119-2120
            [1 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, University of Leipzig AöR , Leipzig, Germany
            [2 ]Clinical Trial Centre, University of Leipzig , Leipzig, Germany
            Author notes
            Correspondence: Jens BräunlichDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University of Leipzig AöR , Liebigstrasse 20, Leipzig04103, GermanyTel +49 492 198 1598Email
            © 2019 Wirtz et al.

            This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (

            Page count
            Figures: 1, References: 1, Pages: 2
            Response to Letter

            Respiratory medicine


            Comment on this article