23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Introducing high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy at the intermediate care unit: expanding the range of supportive pulmonary care

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background

          Non-invasive respiratory support is a frequent indication for intermediate care unit (IMCU) admission. Extending the possibilities of respiratory support at the IMCU with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) may prevent intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and invasive ventilation. However, the safety and limitations of HFNC administration in the stand-alone IMCU setting are not yet studied. This study therefore aims to investigate to what extent and in which patients HFNC can safely be administered at a stand-alone mixed surgical IMCU.

          Methods

          A case series, using retrospectively collected data, was performed after the first year of introducing HFNC at a stand-alone IMCU. The following variables were collected: indication to start HFNC, vital parameters and arterial blood gas measurements. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome was transfer to the ICU.

          Results

          A total of 96 admissions were included. The indications to start HFNC at the IMCU were predominantly pathologies of pulmonary origin (n=67, 69.8%). Less frequent indications were prolonged support postweaning (n=15), non-pulmonary sepsis (n=7) and post-trauma resuscitation (n=6). The average PaO 2/FiO 2ratio at start of HFNC was 152 (95% CI 139 to 165). 30-day mortality was 7, of which 5 were admitted with treatment restrictions (no ICU policy) and 2 deaths were unrelated to HFNC. Transfer to the ICU occurred in 18 (18.8%) admissions, of which 12 received invasive mechanical ventilation. Reason for ICU transfer was mainly PaO2/FiO2 ratio<100 under maximum non-invasive treatment (n=12, 66.7%). Application of HFNC at the IMCU prevented 162 days of ICU admission.

          Discussion

          Administration of HFNC at a stand-alone surgical IMCU may be safe as it expands the range of supportive possibilities and thereby reduces the need for ICU admissions. Pulmonary indications to start HFNC increase the risk of ICU transfer and mechanical ventilation.

          Level of evidence

          Level VI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Beneficial effects of humidified high flow nasal oxygen in critical care patients: a prospective pilot study.

          To evaluate the efficiency, safety and outcome of high flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure. Pilot prospective monocentric study. Thirty-eight patients were included. Baseline demographic and clinical data, as well as respiratory variables at baseline and various times after HFNC initiation during 48 h, were recorded. Arterial blood gases were measured before and after the use of HFNC. Noise and discomfort were monitored along with outcome and need for invasive mechanical ventilation. HFNC significantly reduced the respiratory rate, heart rate, dyspnea score, supraclavicular retraction and thoracoabdominal asynchrony, and increased pulse oxymetry. These improvements were observed as early as 15 min after the beginning of HFNC for respiratory rate and pulse oxymetry. PaO(2) and PaO(2)/FiO(2) increased significantly after 1 h HFNC in comparison with baseline (141 ± 106 vs. 95 ± 40 mmHg, p = 0.009 and 169 ± 108 vs. 102 ± 23, p = 0.036; respectively). These improvements lasted throughout the study period. HFNC was used for a mean duration of 2.8 days and a maximum of 7 days. It was never interrupted for intolerance. No nosocomial pneumonia occurred during HFNC. Nine patients required secondary invasive mechanical ventilation. Absence of a significant decrease in the respiratory rate, lower oxygenation and persistence of thoracoabdominal asynchrony after HFNC initiation were early indicators of HFNC failure. HFNC has a beneficial effect on clinical signs and oxygenation in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure. These favorable results constitute a prerequisite to launching a randomized controlled study to investigate whether HFNC reduces intubation in these patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a relatively new therapy used in adults with respiratory failure. Whether it is superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether HFNC was superior to either COT or NIV in adult acute respiratory failure patients. Methods A review of the literature was conducted from the electronic databases from inception up to 20 October 2016. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with COT or HFNC with NIV were included. The intubation rate was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included the mechanical ventilation rate, the rate of escalation of respiratory support and mortality. Results Eleven studies that enrolled 3459 patients (HFNC, n = 1681) were included. There were eight studies comparing HFNC with COT, two comparing HFNC with NIV, and one comparing all three. HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, P = 0.002), mechanical ventilation rate (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.97, P = 0.04) and the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67, P < 0.0001) when compared to COT. There was no difference in mortality between HFNC and COT utilization (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, P = 0.96). When HFNC was compared to NIV, there was no difference in the intubation rate (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39, P = 0.84), the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28, P = 0.97) or mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.68, P = 0.65). Conclusions Compared to COT, HFNC reduced the rate of intubation, mechanical ventilation and the escalation of respiratory support. When compared to NIV, HFNC showed no better outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are necessary to prove our findings. Trial registration PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on May 25, 2016 registration no. CRD42016039581. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1760-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Delivered oxygen concentrations using low-flow and high-flow nasal cannulas.

              Nasal cannulas are commonly used to deliver oxygen in acute and chronic care settings; however, there are few data available on delivered fraction of inspired oxygen (F(IO(2))). The purposes of this study were to determine the delivered F(IO(2)) on human subjects using low-flow and high-flow nasal cannulas, and to determine the effects of mouth-closed and mouth-open breathing on F(IO(2)). We measured the pharyngeal F(IO(2)) delivered by adult nasal cannulas at 1-6 L/min and high-flow nasal cannulas at 6-15 L/min consecutively in 10 normal subjects. Oxygen was initiated at 1 L/min, with the subject at rest, followed by a period of rapid breathing. Gas samples were aspirated from a nasal catheter positioned with the tip behind the uvula. This process was repeated at each liter flow. Mean, standard deviation, and range were calculated at each liter flow. F(IO(2)) during mouth-open and mouth-closed breathing were compared using the dependent test for paired values, to determine if there were significant differences. The mean resting F(IO(2)) ranged from 0.26-0.54 at 1-6 L/min to 0.54-0.75 at 6-15 L/min. During rapid breathing the mean F(IO(2)) ranged from 0.24-0.45 at 1-6 L/min to 0.49-0.72 at 6-15 L/min. The mean F(IO(2)) increased with increasing flow rates. The standard deviation (+/- 0.04-0.15) and range were large, and F(IO(2)) varied widely within and between subjects. F(IO(2)) during mouth-open breathing was significantly (p < 0.05) greater than that during mouth-closed breathing. F(IO(2)) increased with increasing flow. Subjects who breathed with their mouths open attained a significantly higher F(IO(2)), compared to those who breathed with their mouths closed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Trauma Surg Acute Care Open
                Trauma Surg Acute Care Open
                tsaco
                tsaco
                Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2397-5776
                2018
                3 August 2018
                : 3
                : 1
                : e000179
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDivision of Surgery , Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht University , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine , University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [3 ]departmentDepartment of of Intensive Care Medicine , Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Joost D J Plate, Division of Surgery, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, 3584CX, The Netherlands; j.d.j.plate@ 123456umcutrecht.nl
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4928-414X
                Article
                tsaco-2018-000179
                10.1136/tsaco-2018-000179
                6078271
                8b54f186-3676-4c4d-a468-53fc0aa6866b
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 March 2018
                : 04 April 2018
                : 18 April 2018
                Categories
                Original Article
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                acute care,acute care surgery,critical care,trauma/ critical care

                Comments

                Comment on this article