• Giulia Spoletini, Chiara Mega, Lara Pisani, Mona Alotaibi, Alia Khoja, Lori Lyn Price, Francesco Blasi, Stefano Nava, and Nicholas S Hill.
• Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Division, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
• J Crit Care. 2018 Dec 1; 48: 418-425.

PurposeTo assess the role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) compared to standard oxygen (SO) as complementary therapy to non-invasive ventilation (NIV).MethodsMulticenter trial including patients (n = 54) anticipated to receive NIV for ≥24 h due to acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to SO or HFNT during breaks off NIV. Primary outcome was total time on and off NIV. Secondary outcomes were comfort and dyspnea, respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), tolerance and side effects.ResultsTotal time per patient on NIV (1315 vs 1441 min) and breaks (1362 vs 1196 min), and mean duration of each break (520 vs 370 min) were similar in the HFNT and SO arms (p > .05). Comfort score was higher on HFNT than on SO (8.3 ± 2.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.3, p = .001). Dyspnea, RR and SpO2 were similar in the two arms, but the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO during breaks did not occur with HFNT.ConclusionCompared to SO, HFNT did not reduce time on NIV. However, it was more comfortable and the increase in RR and dyspnea seen with SO did not occur with HFNT. Therefore, HFNT could be a suitable alternative to SO during breaks off NIV.Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

25 keywords...

hide…