Management of dyspnea with high-flow nasal air or fan - a randomized controlled crossover trial.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Sirpa Leivo-Korpela, Heidi A Rantala, Lauri Lehtimäki, Reetta P Piili, Hannele Hasala, Tarja Korhonen, Juho T Lehto
{"title":"Management of dyspnea with high-flow nasal air or fan - a randomized controlled crossover trial.","authors":"Sirpa Leivo-Korpela, Heidi A Rantala, Lauri Lehtimäki, Reetta P Piili, Hannele Hasala, Tarja Korhonen, Juho T Lehto","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.08.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) may relieve severe dyspnea, but its role compared to other treatment options in palliative care remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Assess the effect and feasibility of HFNT with air compared to fan therapy in relieving dyspnea among non-hypoxemic patients with incurable cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared airflow delivered by HFNT and fan. The duration of both interventions was 30 minutes. Change in dyspnea was measured using a numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10. The overall benefits and adverse events of the interventions were assessed. (Trial identifier, NCT05257850).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-six patients with dyspnea on NRS ≥3, and oxygen saturation ≥88% were enrolled, and 28 patients completed the trial. The median NRS for dyspnea decreased from 5.0 (IQR 4.0-6.5) to 3.5 (IQR 2.0-5.8, P = 0.001) with HFNT with air and from 5.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0) to 2.5 (IQR 1.0-7.0, P = 0.012) with fan. The median change in dyspnea on NRS was -1.0 (IQR 0.0 - -2.8) for both HFNT with air and fan, with no significant difference between the therapies (P = 0.935). Over half of the patients reported that both therapies relieved their dyspnea and that they adapted well to them.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of airflow through HFNT or fan on dyspnea did not differ in non-hypoxemic patients with advanced cancer. Both therapies seemed to give slight relief on dyspnea without significant adverse events. Thus, the choice between HFNT with air or fan should be made according to the patient´s preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.08.033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) may relieve severe dyspnea, but its role compared to other treatment options in palliative care remains unclear.

Objectives: Assess the effect and feasibility of HFNT with air compared to fan therapy in relieving dyspnea among non-hypoxemic patients with incurable cancer.

Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared airflow delivered by HFNT and fan. The duration of both interventions was 30 minutes. Change in dyspnea was measured using a numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10. The overall benefits and adverse events of the interventions were assessed. (Trial identifier, NCT05257850).

Results: Thirty-six patients with dyspnea on NRS ≥3, and oxygen saturation ≥88% were enrolled, and 28 patients completed the trial. The median NRS for dyspnea decreased from 5.0 (IQR 4.0-6.5) to 3.5 (IQR 2.0-5.8, P = 0.001) with HFNT with air and from 5.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0) to 2.5 (IQR 1.0-7.0, P = 0.012) with fan. The median change in dyspnea on NRS was -1.0 (IQR 0.0 - -2.8) for both HFNT with air and fan, with no significant difference between the therapies (P = 0.935). Over half of the patients reported that both therapies relieved their dyspnea and that they adapted well to them.

Conclusion: The effect of airflow through HFNT or fan on dyspnea did not differ in non-hypoxemic patients with advanced cancer. Both therapies seemed to give slight relief on dyspnea without significant adverse events. Thus, the choice between HFNT with air or fan should be made according to the patient´s preferences.

使用高流量鼻腔空气或风扇治疗呼吸困难-一项随机对照交叉试验。
背景:高流量鼻疗法(HFNT)可以缓解严重的呼吸困难,但与其他治疗方案相比,其在姑息治疗中的作用尚不清楚。目的:评价空气通气与风扇通气在缓解非低氧癌症患者呼吸困难中的效果和可行性。方法:这项前瞻性、随机、对照、交叉试验比较了HFNT和风扇输送的气流。两种干预的持续时间均为30分钟。使用数字评分量表(NRS)从0到10测量呼吸困难的变化。评估了干预措施的总体益处和不良事件。(试验标识,NCT05257850)。结果:36例呼吸困难患者(NRS≥3,血氧饱和度≥88%)入组,28例患者完成试验。呼吸困难的中位NRS从空气组的5.0 (IQR 4.0-6.5)降至3.5 (IQR 2.0-5.8, P = 0.001),风扇组的中位NRS从5.0 (IQR 4.0-7.0)降至2.5 (IQR 1.0-7.0, P = 0.012)。空气通气组和风扇通气组的NRS呼吸困难的中位变化为-1.0 (IQR 0.0 - -2.8),两组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.935)。超过一半的患者报告说,两种治疗方法都缓解了他们的呼吸困难,他们适应得很好。结论:在非低氧血症的晚期癌症患者中,通过HFNT或风扇通气对呼吸困难的影响没有差异。两种疗法似乎都能轻微缓解呼吸困难,没有明显的不良事件。因此,应根据患者的喜好选择带空气或风扇的HFNT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信