High Flow Oxygen Therapy – Risks and Rewards

Stephen Tunnell
{"title":"High Flow Oxygen Therapy – Risks and Rewards","authors":"Stephen Tunnell","doi":"10.53097/jmv.10077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction High Flow Oxygen Therapy via Nasal Cannula (HFNC) has documented advantages over conventional oxygen therapy (COT). It’s been noted to improve the survival rate among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and potentially reduce the incidence of more invasive care. Adjustable oxygen concentration and higher flows that match the inspiratory demand of the patient with respiratory distress result in less entrainment of room air, which dilutes the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) and therefore reduces effectiveness of intended use. Higher flows have been demanded by the clinical community and are associated with a reduction of both PaCO2 and metabolic work. Newer High Flow devices offer higher flow rates up to 80 liters per minute. We examined whether the use of 60 and 80 liters per minute set flows would create an increased risk of gastric insufflation and possibly aspiration. Methods Bench study to compare the pressures generated using different flow rates in two commercially available HFNC devices in three different conditions: Open and closed system (mouth) breathing, breathing against active exhalation, and complete downstream occlusion. Results Our bench study found that high flow rate therapy did not elevate airway pressures to a level that would result in gastric distention and potential aspiration. In the open mouth test, the pressure ranged from minimum 0.2 to maximum of 1.3 cmH2O, and from minimum of 0.52 to 5.27 cmH2O in the closed mouth test. In the active breathing test, the pressures ranged from minimum 1.5 to 6 cmH2O. In the complete occlusion test, the pressures ranged from minimum 0.37 to 4.49 cmH2O. Conclusion Flows provided during HFNC therapy do not pose a hazard of creating high pressures which exceed esophageal opening pressure and pose a risk of gastric distention. The higher flow rates may reduce the risk associated with the potential false positive prediction of HFNC failure when therapy is not set to match the patient’s inspiratory peak flow demand. The benefit of higher flows to match the inspiratory demand provides a rarely recognized additional benefit of improving the accuracy of predictive indices such as the ROX index and allows for high flow therapy to more fully achieve its intended use.","PeriodicalId":73813,"journal":{"name":"Journal of mechanical ventilation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of mechanical ventilation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53097/jmv.10077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction High Flow Oxygen Therapy via Nasal Cannula (HFNC) has documented advantages over conventional oxygen therapy (COT). It’s been noted to improve the survival rate among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and potentially reduce the incidence of more invasive care. Adjustable oxygen concentration and higher flows that match the inspiratory demand of the patient with respiratory distress result in less entrainment of room air, which dilutes the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) and therefore reduces effectiveness of intended use. Higher flows have been demanded by the clinical community and are associated with a reduction of both PaCO2 and metabolic work. Newer High Flow devices offer higher flow rates up to 80 liters per minute. We examined whether the use of 60 and 80 liters per minute set flows would create an increased risk of gastric insufflation and possibly aspiration. Methods Bench study to compare the pressures generated using different flow rates in two commercially available HFNC devices in three different conditions: Open and closed system (mouth) breathing, breathing against active exhalation, and complete downstream occlusion. Results Our bench study found that high flow rate therapy did not elevate airway pressures to a level that would result in gastric distention and potential aspiration. In the open mouth test, the pressure ranged from minimum 0.2 to maximum of 1.3 cmH2O, and from minimum of 0.52 to 5.27 cmH2O in the closed mouth test. In the active breathing test, the pressures ranged from minimum 1.5 to 6 cmH2O. In the complete occlusion test, the pressures ranged from minimum 0.37 to 4.49 cmH2O. Conclusion Flows provided during HFNC therapy do not pose a hazard of creating high pressures which exceed esophageal opening pressure and pose a risk of gastric distention. The higher flow rates may reduce the risk associated with the potential false positive prediction of HFNC failure when therapy is not set to match the patient’s inspiratory peak flow demand. The benefit of higher flows to match the inspiratory demand provides a rarely recognized additional benefit of improving the accuracy of predictive indices such as the ROX index and allows for high flow therapy to more fully achieve its intended use.
高流量氧气治疗——风险与回报
经鼻插管的高流量氧疗(HFNC)比传统氧疗(COT)有明显的优势。人们注意到,它可以提高急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者的存活率,并可能减少更多侵入性护理的发生率。可调节的氧浓度和更高的流量与呼吸窘迫患者的吸气需求相匹配,导致较少的室内空气夹带,这稀释了吸入氧(FiO2)的比例,因此降低了预期使用的有效性。临床社区需要更高的血流,这与PaCO2和代谢工作的减少有关。较新的高流量设备提供更高的流速高达每分钟80升。我们研究了每分钟60升和80升的固定流量是否会增加胃误吸的风险。方法通过台架研究,比较两种市售HFNC设备在开闭系统(口)呼吸、主动呼气呼吸和完全下游闭塞三种不同情况下,不同流量下产生的压力。结果我们的实验研究发现,高流量治疗不会将气道压力升高到导致胃膨胀和潜在误吸的水平。在开口试验中,压力范围从最小0.2到最大1.3 cmH2O,在闭口试验中压力范围从最小0.52到5.27 cmH2O。在主动呼吸试验中,压力范围从最低1.5到6 cmH2O。在完全闭塞试验中,压力范围从最小0.37到4.49 cmH2O。结论HFNC治疗过程中提供的流量不会产生超过食管开口压力的高压和胃膨胀的危险。当治疗设置不符合患者吸气峰值流量需求时,较高的流量可能降低与HFNC失败的潜在假阳性预测相关的风险。与吸气需求相匹配的高流量的好处提供了一个很少被认识到的额外好处,即提高预测指标(如ROX指数)的准确性,并允许高流量治疗更充分地实现其预期用途。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信