4.2 Article

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Do-Not-Intubate Patients With Hypoxemic Respiratory Distress

Journal

RESPIRATORY CARE
Volume 58, Issue 4, Pages 597-600

Publisher

DAEDALUS ENTERPRISES INC
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01887

Keywords

oxygen inhalation therapy; humidification; respiratory insufficiency; noninvasive ventilation

Funding

  1. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Patients with do-not-intubate (DNI) status and respiratory failure are commonly treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy supplies a high flow of heated and humidified oxygen that may provide an effective alternative to NW. We assessed the efficacy of HFNC in DNI patients with hypoxemic respiratory distress. METHODS: We identified 50 DNI patients with hypoxemic respiratory distress who were admitted to a medical ICU and who received HFNC. We excluded patients with P-aCO2 > 65 mm Hg and pH < 7.28. The primary end point was the need for escalation to NW, as determined by the primary service. Mean changes in oxygen saturation and breathing frequency before and after HFNC were compared. RESULTS: The subjects included 25 men and 25 women, mean age 73 years (range 27-96 y). Diagnoses (allowing multiple conditions) included pulmonary fibrosis (15), pneumonia (15), COPD (12), cancer (7), hematologic malignancy (7), and congestive heart failure (3). Hospital mortality was 60% (30/50). HFNC was initiated at a mean F-IO2 of 0.67 (range 0.30-1.0) and flow of 42.6 L/min (range 30-60 L/min). Mean O-2 saturations went from 89.1% to 94.7% (P < .001), and breathing frequency went from 30.6 breaths/min to 24.7 breaths/min (P < .001). Nine of the 50 subjects (18%) escalated to NW, while 82% were maintained on HFNC. The median duration of HFNC was 30 hours (range 2-144 h). CONCLUSIONS: HFNC can provide adequate oxygenation for many patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and may be an alternative to NIV for DNI patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available