Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Few studies have focused on high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) usage in the last few weeks of life. The aim of this study was to identify the status of HFNC use in patients with cancer at the end of life and the relevant clinical factors. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea. Among patients with cancer who died between 2018 and 2020, those who initiated HFNC within 14 days before death were included. Patients were categorized based on the time from HFNC initiation to death as imminent (<4 days) and non‐imminent (≥4 days). Results Among the 2191 deceased patients with terminal cancer, 329 (15.0%) were analyzed. The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 62.9% were male. The leading cause of respiratory failure was pneumonia (70.2%), followed by pleural effusion (30.7%) and aggravation of lung neoplasms (18.8%). Most patients were conscious (79.3%) and had resting dyspnea (76.3%) at HFNC initiation. Patients received HFNC therapy for a mean of 3.4 days in the last 2 weeks of life, and 62.6% initiated it within 4 days before death. Furthermore, female sex, no palliative care consultation, no advance statements in person on life‐sustaining treatment, and no resting dyspnea were independently associated with the imminent use of HFNC. Conclusions Many patients with cancer started HFNC therapy at the point of imminent death. However, efforts toward goal‐directed use of HFNC at the end‐of‐life stage are required. This study illustrates the status of high‐flow nasal cannula use in patients with terminal cancer at the end of life. Efforts to communicate patients' stated goals of care may help enhance goal‐concordant use of high‐flow nasal cannula at the end of life and reduce initiating in an imminently dying state.

Objectives To investigate the indications of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy among patients with mild hypercapnia and to explore the predictors of intubation when HFNC fails. Methods This retrospective study was conducted based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Adult patients with mild hypercapnia (45 < PaCO 2  ≤ 60 mmHg) received either HFNC or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) oxygen therapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to increase between-group comparability. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate overall survival and cumulative intubation rates, while 28-day mortality and 48-h and 28-day intubation rates were compared using the Chi-squared test. The predictive performances of HR/SpO 2 and the ROX index (the ratio of SpO 2 /FiO 2 to respiratory rate) at 4 h were assessed regarding HFNC failure, which was determined if intubation was given within 48 h after the initiation of oxygen therapy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for HR/SpO 2 and the ROX index were calculated and compared. Results A total of 524,520 inpatient hospitalization records were screened, 106 patients in HFNC group and 106 patients in NIV group were successfully matched. No significant difference in 48-h intubation rate between the HFNC group (the treatment group) and the NIV group (the control group) (14.2% vs. 8.5%, p  = 0.278); patients receiving HFNC had higher 28-day intubation rate (26.4% vs. 14.2%, p  = 0.029), higher 28-day mortality (17.9% vs. 8.5%, p  = 0.043), and longer ICU length of stay (4.4 vs. 3.3 days, p  = 0.019), compared to those of NIV group. The AUC of HR/SpO 2 at 4 h after the initiation of HFNC yielded around 0.660 for predicting 48-h intubation, greater than that of the ROX index with an AUC of 0.589 ( p  < 0.01). Conclusion Patients with impending respiratory failure had lower intubation rate, shorter ICU length of stay, and lower mortality when treated mild hypercapnia with NIV over HFNC. As opposed to the ROX index, a modest, yet improved predictive performance is demonstrated using HR/SpO 2 in predicting the failure of HFNC among these patients.

Background From the point of view of machine construction and hydrodynamics, this paper innovatively proposes that the essence of high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a constant‐flow mode in noninvasive ventilator (NIVCFM). This study enrolled healthy adults as study subjects to assess the subjective comfort assessed by visual analog scoring scale of NIVCFM/HFNC and objective comfort measured by the noise level generated by NIVCFM/HFNC, aiming to provide a scientific basis for the rational clinical application of NIVCFM/HFNC. Methods Forty‐four healthy adults participated in this study. The noise generated by NIVCFM/HFNC is measured, and the comfort is evaluated during NIVCFM delivery at flow rates of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 L/min. Results When the ventilator flow rate is 60 L/min, the maximum noise is 65.9 dB, increasing noise by 23.7 dB from a baseline of 42.2 dB at the flow rate of 0 L/min. There was a strong nonlinear positive correlation between the noise level and the flow rates. The median score for dry mouth, nose or throat, dysphagia, sore throat, and other discomfort was 0. The median score for dyspnea was 0 at 0–30 L/min, 1 at 35–55 L/min, and 2 at 60 L/min. Conclusions The grater the flow rate, the greater the noise generated by NIVCFM/HFNC (<65.9 dB). The maximum flow rate that most healthy adults can able to tolerate is 30 L/min, and the main discomfort is dyspnea.

ABSTRACT Background: Currently, a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been shown to improve extubation outcomes. However, there is a lack of evidence on the utilisation of HFNC in high-risk chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of HFNC versus non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing re-intubation following planned extubation in high-risk COPD patients. Patients and Methods: In this prospective, randomised, controlled trial, 230 mechanically ventilated COPD patients at high risk for re-intubation who fulfilled the criteria for planned extubation were enrolled. Post-extubation blood gases and vital signs at 1, 24, and 48 hours were recorded. The primary outcome was the re-intubation rate within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included post-extubation respiratory failure, respiratory infection, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and mortality rate at 60 days. Results: 230 patients after planned extubation were randomly allocated to receive either HFNC (n = 120) or NIV (n = 110). Re-intubation within 72 hours was significantly lower in the high-flow group: 8 patients (6.6%) versus 23 patients (20.9%) in the NIV group {absolute difference, 14.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.9-16.3]; P = 0.001}. The frequency of post-extubation respiratory failure was less in patients assigned to HFNC than in those allocated NIV (25% vs. 35.4%) [absolute difference, 10.4% (95% CI, 2.4-14.3); P = 0.001]. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding reasons for respiratory failure after extubation. It was observed that the 60-day mortality rate was lower in patients who received HFNC than in those assigned to NIV (5% vs. 13.6%) [absolute difference, 8.6 (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.10); P = 0.001]. Conclusion: The use of HFNC after extubation appears to be superior to NIV in reducing the risk of re-intubation within 72 hours and 60-day mortality in high-risk COPD patients.

Background and Objective: Respiratory assistance tactic that is best for COVID-19-associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) individuals has yet to be determined. Patients with AHRF may benefit from the use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The goals of this prospective observational research were to estimate predictive factors for HFNC and NIV failure in COVID-19-related AHRF subjects. Materials and Methods: The research enlisted the participation of 124 patients. A stepwise treatment approach was used. HFNC and NIV were used on 124 (100%) and 64 (51.6%) patients, respectively. Thirty (24.2%) of 124 patients were intubated and received invasive mechanical ventilation. Results: 85 (68.5%) patients were managed successfully. Patients who required NIV exhibited a higher prevalence of treatment failure (70.3% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.019) and had higher mortality (59.4% vs. 31.5%, p = 0.001) than patients who received HFNC. Using logistic regression, the respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index at 24 h (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, p = 0.018) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (OR = 1.60, p = 0.003) were found to be predictors of HFNC efficacy. It was the ROX index at 24 h and the CCI optimum cut-off values for HFNC outcome that were 6.1 (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.73) and 2.5 (AUC = 0.68), respectively. Serum ferritin level (OR = 0.23, p = 0.041) and lymphocyte count (OR = 1.03, p = 0.01) were confirmed as predictors of NIV failure. Serum ferritin level at a cut-off value of 456.2 ng/mL (AUC = 0.67) and lymphocyte count lower than 0.70 per mm3, (AUC = 0.70) were associated with NIV failure with 70.5% sensitivity, 68.7% specificity and sensitivity of 84.1%, specificity of 56.2%, respectively. Conclusion: The ROX index at 24 h, CCI, as well as serum ferritin level, and lymphocyte count can be used as markers for HFNC and NIV failure, respectively, in SARS-CoV-2-induced AHRF patients.

(1) Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are typically applied during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic sedation. (2) Methods: We conducted a rigorous systematic review enrolling randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five databases. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane’s RoB 2.0 tool; certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE framework. Meta-analysis was conducted using inverse-variance heterogeneity model and presented as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Trial sequential analysis was performed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted with Bayesian approach. (3) Results: Eight RCTs were included. Compared to COT, HFNC did not reduce the overall incidence of hypoxemia (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.24–1.09; CoE: very low) but might reduce the incidence of hypoxemia in patients at moderate to high risk for hypoxemia (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.31–0.96; and CoE: very low). HFNC might reduce the incidence of severe hypoxemia (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20–0.74; and CoE: low). HFNC might not affect the need of minor airway interventions (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.08–1.22; and CoE: very low) and had no effect on procedure duration (CoE: very low); (4) Conclusions: During GI endoscopic sedation, HFNC might reduce the incidence of hypoxemia in patients at moderate to high risk for hypoxemia and prevent severe hypoxemia.

Objective: To investigate whether high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy could reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation and improve arterial blood gas values, vital signs, and clinical outcomes of patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure as compared with conventional oxygen therapy alone. Methods: This retrospective, observational study was performed in the 15-month study period and included adult patients with tachypnea and hypoxemia, whose vital signs and arterial blood gas were monitored. The high-flow nasal cannula oxygen group consisted of patients admitted to the emergency department with acute respiratory failure when high-flow nasal cannula oxygen treatment was available in the hospital, while the conventional oxygen therapy group consisted of patients who have presented to the emergency department with acute respiratory failure in the absence of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen device in the hospital. The primary outcome of the study was improvement in vital signs and arterial blood gas values within first and fourth hours of the treatment. The second outcome was the need for intubation in the emergency department, length of hospital stay, and hospital mortality. Results: The decrease in the pulse and respiratory rate of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen-treated group was significantly greater than the conventional oxygen therapy group on the first and fourth hours of treatment (p < 0.001). PaO2 values were significantly higher in the high-flow nasal cannula oxygen group at the first and fourth hours of treatment (p ⩽ 0.001). Likewise, mean SaO2 levels of patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula oxygen treatment was significantly higher than those of patients in the conventional oxygen therapy group (p = 0.006 at 1 h and p < 0.001 at 4 h). In the hypercapnic patients, the decrease in PaCO2 and increase in pH and PaO2 values were significantly greater in high-flow nasal cannula oxygen group (p < 0.001). The difference between the groups regarding the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was not statistically significant (p = 0.179). Conclusion: High-flow nasal cannula oxygen treatment has been associated with favorable effects in vital signs and arterial blood gas values in patients with acute respiratory failure. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen might be considered as the first-line therapy for patients with hypoxemic and/or hypercapnic acute respiratory failure.

Oxygen support with high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is gentler than mechanical ventilation and may provide significant benefits, but more studies are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of different respiratory supports in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia. Oxygen support with HFNC is gentler than mechanical ventilation and may provide significant benefits, but more studies are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of different respiratory supports in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia.

A female nurse in her 40s caring for a patient with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia treated with a high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) presented with fever, cough and dyspnoea. Based on imaging findings and a positive reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), COVID‐19 pneumonia was diagnosed, although her cohabiting family had similar symptoms and their RT‐PCR tests were negative. Laboratory results showed Mycoplasma antigen (+). She was started on ciclesonide 1200 μg/day and favipiravir (3600 mg/day on the first day and 1600 mg/day from Day 2). As Mycoplasma antigen was positive on admission and her family had similar symptoms, levofloxacin 500 mg/day was started. The patient recovered and was discharged on Day 10. The patient did not have Mycoplasma infection because the Mycoplasma antibody measured by particle agglutination (PA) method was increased only up to 80 times after 4 weeks. This case highlights that healthcare workers wearing full personal protective equipment can nevertheless acquire COVID‐19 from patients treated with HFNCs. We present the case of a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia who was suspected to have co‐infection with Mycoplasma pneumoniae and a nosocomial infection from a patient treated with a high‐flow nasal cannula, and who did not worsen and was relieved by early administration of favipiravir and ciclesonide.

One important concern during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is to not delay intubation. To validate the diagnostic accuracy of an index (termed ROX and defined as the ratio of oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi to respiratory rate) for determining HFNC outcome (need or not for intubation). This was a 2-year multicenter prospective observational cohort study including patients with pneumonia treated with HFNC. Identification was through Cox proportional hazards modeling of ROX association with HFNC outcome. The most specific cutoff of the ROX index to predict HFNC failure and success was assessed. Among the 191 patients treated with HFNC in the validation cohort, 68 (35.6%) required intubation. The prediction accuracy of the ROX index increased over time (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 2 h, 0.679; 6 h, 0.703; 12 h, 0.759). ROX greater than or equal to 4.88 measured at 2 (hazard ratio, 0.434; 95% confidence interval, 0.264-0.715;  = 0.001), 6 (hazard ratio, 0.304; 95% confidence interval, 0.182-0.509;  < 0.001), or 12 hours (hazard ratio, 0.291; 95% confidence interval, 0.161-0.524;  < 0.001) after HFNC initiation was consistently associated with a lower risk for intubation. A ROX less than 2.85, less than 3.47, and less than 3.85 at 2, 6, and 12 hours of HFNC initiation, respectively, were predictors of HFNC failure. Patients who failed presented a lower increase in the values of the ROX index over the 12 hours. Among components of the index, oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi had a greater weight than respiratory rate. In patients with pneumonia with acute respiratory failure treated with HFNC, ROX is an index that can help identify those patients with low and those with high risk for intubation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02845128).