Respiratory care
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia.
Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) over noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is not known. We aimed to assess the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 treated with either HFNC or NIV. ⋯ We were not able to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement of oxygenation parameters nor of the intubation rate at 48 h between NIV and HFNC. These findings should be further tested in a larger randomized controlled trial. The study was registered at the Clinical Trials Registry of India (www.ctri.nic.in; reference number: CTRI/2020/07/026835) on July 27, 2020.
-
Peak expiratory flow during mechanical insufflation-exsufflation: endotracheal tube versus facemask.
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) applied through the endotracheal tube (ETT) can effectively eliminate airway secretions in intubated patients. However, the effect of the interface (ETT vs face mask) on expiratory air flow generated by MI-E has not been investigated. This study aimed to investigate the effect of the ETT on peak expiratory flow (PEF) along with other associated factors that could influence PEF generated by MI-E. ⋯ MI-E via ETT generated slower PEF than via face mask, suggesting that a higher-pressure protocol should be prescribed for intubated patients. An insufflation-exsufflation pressure up to +50/-50 cm H2O could be considered to produce a PEF faster than 2.7 L/s, and the applications were safe and feasible for subjects on invasive mechanical ventilation.
-
In order to determine, document, and communicate the value of respiratory therapists performing respiratory care procedures, the respiratory care profession needs to position itself to capture and report both time and value standards that can be applied in allocating respiratory care resources. To do this, we propose a new metric called value-efficiency. If we wish to use value-efficiency as a metric to justify respiratory care activities and support labor budgets, there are three key considerations: (1) What value does respiratory care add to the health care organization? (2) Are the interventions provided necessary and of clinical value? (3) What is the value of the respiratory therapist in the delivery of these services? Significant challenges are facing the respiratory care profession and a focus on value-efficiency is a direction the profession must pursue. This approach is a practical response to the increasing demands of payers, administrators, consultants, and patients.