Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
3975688
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Physiologic Effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure
Author(s)
Mauri, T; Turrini, C; Eronia, N; Grasselli, G; Volta, CA; Bellani, G; Pesenti, A
Year
2017
Is Peer Reviewed?
Yes
Journal
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
ISSN:
1073-449X
EISSN:
1535-4970
Volume
195
Issue
9
Page Numbers
1207-1215
Language
English
PMID
27997805
DOI
10.1164/rccm.201605-0916OC
Abstract
RATIONALE:
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) improves the clinical outcomes of nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF).
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effects of HFNC on gas exchange, inspiratory effort, minute ventilation, end-expiratory lung volume, dynamic compliance, and ventilation homogeneity in patients with AHRF.
METHODS:
This was a prospective randomized crossover study in nonintubated patients with AHRF with PaO2/setFiO2 less than or equal to 300 mm Hg admitted to the intensive care unit. We randomly applied HFNC set at 40 L/min compared with a standard nonocclusive facial mask at the same clinically set FiO2 (20 min/step).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
Toward the end of each phase, we measured arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort, and work of breathing by esophageal pressure swings (ΔPes) and pressure time product, and we estimated changes in lung volumes and ventilation homogeneity by electrical impedance tomography. We enrolled 15 patients aged 60 ± 14 years old with PaO2/setFiO2 130 ± 35 mm Hg. Seven (47%) had bilateral lung infiltrates. Compared with the facial mask, HFNC significantly improved oxygenation (P < 0.001) and lowered respiratory rate (P < 0.01), ΔPes (P < 0.01), and pressure time product (P < 0.001). During HFNC, minute ventilation was reduced (P < 0.001) at constant arterial CO2 tension and pH (P = 0.27 and P = 0.23, respectively); end-expiratory lung volume increased (P < 0.001), and tidal volume did not change (P = 0.44); the ratio of tidal volume to ΔPes (an estimate of dynamic lung compliance) increased (P < 0.05); finally, ventilation distribution was more homogeneous (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS:
In patients with AHRF, HFNC exerts multiple physiologic effects including less inspiratory effort and improved lung volume and compliance. These benefits might underlie the clinical efficacy of HFNC.
Tags
Other
•
Exposure Factors Handbook (Post 2011)
Pubmed (August 2017)
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity