Background: Few data exist on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) admitted to general wards. Rationale and objectives: To retrospectively evaluate feasibility and safety of HFNC in general wards under the intensivist-supervision and after specific training. Methods: Patients with ARF (dyspnea, respiratory rate-RR > 25/min, 150 < PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg during oxygen therapy) admitted to nine wards of an academic hospital were included. Gas-exchange, RR, and comfort were assessed before HFNC and after 2 and 24 h of application. Results: 150 patients (81 male, age 74 [60–80] years, SOFA 4 [2–4]), 123 with de-novo ARF underwent HFNC with flow 60 L/min [50–60], FiO2 50% [36–50] and temperature 34 °C [31–37]. HFNC was applied a total of 1399 days, with a median duration of 7 [3–11] days. No major adverse events or deaths were reported. HFNC did not affect gas exchange but reduced RR (25–22/min at 2–24 h, p < 0.001), and improved Dyspnea Borg Scale (3–1, p < 0.001) and comfort (3–4, p < 0.001) after 24 h. HFNC failed in 20 patients (19.2%): 3 (2.9%) for intolerance, 14 (13.4%) escalated to NIV/CPAP in the ward, 3 (2.9%) transferred to ICU. Among these, one continued HFNC, while the other 2 were intubated and they both died. Predictors of HFNC failure were higher Charlson’s Comorbidity Index (OR 1.29 [1.07–1.55]; p = 0.004), higher APACHE II Score (OR 1.59 [1.09–4.17]; p = 0.003), and cardiac failure as cause of ARF (OR 5.26 [1.36–20.46]; p = 0.02). Conclusion: In patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards, the use of HFNC after an initial training and daily supervision by intensivists was feasible and seemed safe. HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea, and respiratory rate without effects on gas exchanges. Trial registration This is a single-centre, noninterventional, retrospective analysis of clinical data.

Use of high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute respiratory failure in general wards under intensivists supervision: a single center observational study / S.M. Colombo, V. Scaravilli, A. Cortegiani, N. Corcione, A. Guzzardella, L. Baldini, E. Cassinotti, C. Canetta, S. Carugo, C. Hu, A.L. Fracanzani, L. Furlan, M.C. Paleari, A. Galazzi, P. Tagliabue, F. Peyvandi, F. Blasi, G. Grasselli. - In: RESPIRATORY RESEARCH. - ISSN 1465-9921. - 23:1(2022 Jun 26), pp. 171.1-171.11. [10.1186/s12931-022-02090-x]

Use of high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute respiratory failure in general wards under intensivists supervision: a single center observational study

S.M. Colombo
Primo
;
V. Scaravilli
Secondo
;
A. Guzzardella;L. Baldini;E. Cassinotti;S. Carugo;A.L. Fracanzani;L. Furlan;F. Peyvandi;F. Blasi
Penultimo
;
G. Grasselli
Ultimo
2022

Abstract

Background: Few data exist on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) admitted to general wards. Rationale and objectives: To retrospectively evaluate feasibility and safety of HFNC in general wards under the intensivist-supervision and after specific training. Methods: Patients with ARF (dyspnea, respiratory rate-RR > 25/min, 150 < PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg during oxygen therapy) admitted to nine wards of an academic hospital were included. Gas-exchange, RR, and comfort were assessed before HFNC and after 2 and 24 h of application. Results: 150 patients (81 male, age 74 [60–80] years, SOFA 4 [2–4]), 123 with de-novo ARF underwent HFNC with flow 60 L/min [50–60], FiO2 50% [36–50] and temperature 34 °C [31–37]. HFNC was applied a total of 1399 days, with a median duration of 7 [3–11] days. No major adverse events or deaths were reported. HFNC did not affect gas exchange but reduced RR (25–22/min at 2–24 h, p < 0.001), and improved Dyspnea Borg Scale (3–1, p < 0.001) and comfort (3–4, p < 0.001) after 24 h. HFNC failed in 20 patients (19.2%): 3 (2.9%) for intolerance, 14 (13.4%) escalated to NIV/CPAP in the ward, 3 (2.9%) transferred to ICU. Among these, one continued HFNC, while the other 2 were intubated and they both died. Predictors of HFNC failure were higher Charlson’s Comorbidity Index (OR 1.29 [1.07–1.55]; p = 0.004), higher APACHE II Score (OR 1.59 [1.09–4.17]; p = 0.003), and cardiac failure as cause of ARF (OR 5.26 [1.36–20.46]; p = 0.02). Conclusion: In patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards, the use of HFNC after an initial training and daily supervision by intensivists was feasible and seemed safe. HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea, and respiratory rate without effects on gas exchanges. Trial registration This is a single-centre, noninterventional, retrospective analysis of clinical data.
AHRF; ARF; General-wards; HFNC; ICU-supervision; Safety; Aged; Cannula; Dyspnea; Humans; Male; Oxygen; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Patients' Rooms; Retrospective Studies; Noninvasive Ventilation; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Respiratory Insufficiency;
Settore MED/41 - Anestesiologia
Settore MED/18 - Chirurgia Generale
Settore MED/11 - Malattie dell'Apparato Cardiovascolare
Settore MED/15 - Malattie del Sangue
Settore MED/09 - Medicina Interna
Settore MED/10 - Malattie dell'Apparato Respiratorio
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
colombo_12931_2022_Article_2090.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 2 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/945195
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact