Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Nasal high flow therapy: a novel treatment rather than a more expensive oxygen device

Eleni Ischaki, Ioannis Pantazopoulos, Spyros Zakynthinos
European Respiratory Review 2017 26: 170028; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0028-2017
Eleni Ischaki
First Dept of Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Services, Medical School of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: eischaki@yahoo.gr
Ioannis Pantazopoulos
First Dept of Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Services, Medical School of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Spyros Zakynthinos
First Dept of Critical Care Medicine and Pulmonary Services, Medical School of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Recommended algorithm for high-flow nasal cannula use in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure in immunocompetent or immunocompromised patients. #: arterial oxygen tension (PaO2)/inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2) <300 (patients with arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) >45 mmHg and pH <7.35 are excluded); ¶: systolic arterial blood pressure <90 mmHg despite adequate fluid administration; +: the rationale for change in nasal high flow (NHF) settings are as follows. 1) Flow rate could be adjusted downwards by 5–10 L·min−1 per 1–2 h if none of the negative prognostic factors are present. However, if targets of arterial oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2) and respiratory rate are not achieved, while the flow rate is <60 L·min−1, increase of flow rate by 5–10 L·min−1 is preferred to raising FiO2; 2) increase in FiO2 causes increases in PaO2 and SpO2; 3) temperature can be set at 37°C or lower (31–34°C), based on the patient's comfort; §: haemodynamic instability is defined by heart rate >140 beats·min−1 or change >20% from baseline and/or systolic arterial blood pressure >180 mmHg, <90 mmHg or decrease >40 mmHg from baseline. MV: mechanical ventilation; SOT: standard oxygen treatment.

Tables

  • Figures
  • TABLE 1

    Relevant studies for nasal high flow (NHF) in patients with acute respiratory failure

    DesignPatientsResults
    Benefit
     Lenglet et al. [19]Prospective, observational study17 ARF patients on oxygen with a non-rebreathing face mask who switched to NHFNHF was associated with a significant decrease in dyspnoea, respiratory rate and a significant increase in SpO2 within the first 15 min of its application
     Roca et al. [22]Prospective, comparative study of sequential interventions20 patients with hypoxaemic ARF received oxygen via face mask and NHF for 30 min eachNHF was associated with less dyspnoea and mouth dryness and more comfort than face mask; it was also associated with higher PaO2 and lower respiratory rate, with no differences in PaCO2
     Sztrymf et al. [23]Prospective observational study38 ICU patients with ARF who received oxygen through NHFNHF was associated with a significant reduction in respiratory rate, heart rate, dyspnoea score, supraclavicular retraction and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony and a significant improvement in SpO2
     Sztrymf et al. [24]Prospective observational study20 patients with persistent ARF who received oxygen through NHFUse of NHF enabled a significant reduction of respiratory rate and a significant increase in oxygen saturation and PaO2
     Frat et al. [26]Multicentre, open-label RCT310 ARF patients admitted to ICU, randomly assigned to NHF, SOT or NIVICU and 90-day mortality were significantly lower with NHF compared with SOT or NIV, although no significant difference in intubation rate was found between the three study groups. In the subgroup of patients with PaO2/FiO2 ≤200 the intubation rate was significantly lower with NHF
     Messika et al. [27]Prospective observational studyEffectiveness and frequency of NHF use in patients with ARDS29% of patients requiring noninvasive ventilatory support were treated via NHF as first-line treatment. Among them, the intubation rate was 40%. Haemodynamic failure was associated with NHF failure and intubation
    No benefit
     Jones et al. [31]Pragmatic open randomised controlled trial303 ARF patients at emergency departments randomised to NHF or SOTThere was no difference between the groups in NIV or intubation rate during the emergency department stay in mortality, on emergency department and hospital length of stay

    ARF: acute respiratory failure; SpO2: arterial oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry; PaO2: arterial oxygen tension; PaCO2: arterial carbon dioxide tension; ICU: intensive care unit; SOT: standard oxygen treatment; NIV: noninvasive ventilation; FiO2: inspiratory oxygen fraction; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome.

    • TABLE 2

      Relevant studies for nasal high flow (NHF) use in intensive care unit (ICU) post-extubated patients

      DesignPatientsResults
      Benefit
       Rittayamai et al. [34]Randomised, non-blinded, crossover study17 successfully weaned patients received NHF for 30 min followed by SOT for another 30 min and vice versaUse of NHF was associated with significant reductions in dyspnoea, heart rate and breathing frequency compared with a non-rebreathing mask
       Maggiore et al. [35]Randomised, controlled, open-label trial105 extubated patients with PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 randomised to either NHF or Venturi maskNHF in the post-extubation period resulted in better oxygenation for the same set FiO2, decreased respiratory rate, improved patient comfort, reduced episodes of oxygen desaturations and frequency of need for ventilator support of any kind
       Hernández et al. [38]Multicentre, randomised clinical trial527 patients at low risk of post-extubation respiratory failure randomised to NHF or SOT after extubationNHF in comparison with SOT resulted in less post-extubation respiratory failure (8.3% versus 14.4%) and lower re-intubation rate (4.9% versus 12.2%)
      No benefit
       Tiruvoipati et al. [39]Randomised crossover study50 extubated patients received either NHF followed by high-flow face mask for 30 min each or vice versaNo significant difference in gas exchange, respiratory rate or haemodynamics was observed between groups. Tolerance was significantly better with NHF
       Hernández et al. [40]Multicentre, prospective cohort study604 patients at high risk of post-extubation respiratory failure randomised to NHF or NIV after extubationNHF had similar re-intubation rates and median time to re-intubation with NIV. ICU length of stay was lower in the NHF group

      SOT: standard oxygen treatment; PaO2: arterial oxygen tension; FiO2: inspiratory oxygen fraction; NIV: noninvasive ventilation.

      • TABLE 3

        Relevant studies for nasal high flow (NHF) use in post-extubated patients following surgery

        DesignPatientsResults
        Benefit
         Corley et al. [5]Prospective interventional study20 patients post-cardiac surgery with ARF under SOT and then NHFCompared with SOT, NHF increased mean Paw by 3.0 cmH2O, expiratory lung volume by 25.6% and tidal volume by 10.5%. Patients with higher BMI had larger increases in end-expiratory lung volume
         Parke et al. [25]Prospective randomised comparative study56 postoperative patients with ARF, randomised to NHF or to high-flow face maskSignificantly more NHF patients succeeded with their allocated therapy. Patients in the NHF group tended to need NIV less frequently than the high-flow face mask group and had significantly fewer desaturations
         Parke et al. [45]Pragmatic, open-label randomised controlled trial340 post-cardiac surgery patients randomised to NHF or SOT after extubationNo differences in SpO2/FiO2 ratio at day 3 or in-hospital and ICU length of stay and mortality at day 28 were observed between the two study groups. NHF reduced the requirement for escalation of respiratory support
        No benefit
         Corley et al. [46]Randomised controlled trial155 patients post-cardiac surgery with BMI ≥30 kg·m−2 randomised to NHF or SOTNo difference was seen between groups in atelectasis scores on day 1 or 5, in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio or respiratory rate in the first 24 h post-extubation and the length of ICU stay
         Stéphan et al. [52]Multicentre, randomised, unblinded noninferiority trialBiPAP or NHF in 830 cardiothoracic patients who developed ARF after extubation or with pre-existing risk factors for post-extubation ARFNHF was non-inferior to BiPAP in treatment failure, defined as re-intubation for mechanical ventilation, switch to the other study treatment or premature study treatment discontinuation. No significant differences were found in ICU mortality
         Ansari et al. [53]Randomised, controlled, blinded study59 post-elective lung resection surgery patients randomised to NHF or SOTSimilar results were observed in the difference between pre-operative and postoperative 6-min walk test and spirometry between the two study groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the NHF group
         Futier et al. [54]Multicentre, randomised controlled trial220 post-abdominal surgery patients randomised to NHF or SOTNo differences for postoperative hypoxaemia, pulmonary complications or length of hospital stay were found between the two groups studied

        ARF: acute respiratory failure; SOT: standard oxygen treatment; Paw: airway pressure; BMI: body mass index; NIV: noninvasive ventilation; SpO2: arterial oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry; FiO2: inspiratory oxygen fraction; ICU: intensive care unit; BiPAP: bi-level positive airway pressure.

        • TABLE 4

          Relevant studies for nasal high flow (NHF) use in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF)

          DesignPatientsResults
          Benefit
           Coudroy et al. [69]Retrospective observational study115 immunocompromised patients with ARF treated with NIV or NHFThe NHF group had significantly lower rates of intubation and mortality in the ICU and at day 28 than the NIV group
           Frat et al. [70]Post hoc analysis82 immunocompromised patients with ARF treated with NIV, NHF or SOTThe NHF group had significantly lower rates of intubation and mortality than the NIV group. No significant difference in intubation and mortality rates was noted between SOT and NHF
           Mokart et al. [71]Retrospective propensity-score analysis178 cancer patients with severe ARF received oxygen through SOT, NHF or through the combinations NHF–NIV or SOT–NIVCompared to the other patients, patients who received NHF–NIV combination presented a lower day-28 mortality rate, a longer time from ICU admission to intubation and a higher, but not significant number of ventilator-free days. NHF–NIV was independently associated with improved survival
           Epstein et al. [72]Retrospective183 cancer patients with hypoxia treated with NHF41% improved while on the device, 44% remained stable and 15% declined. The device was well tolerated with few complaints
           Lee et al. [73]Retrospective45 patients with haematological malignancies who developed ARF20% of the patients showed a good response to NHF therapy while the remaining 80% of patients failed to respond to the initial NHF therapy requiring intubation with mechanical ventilation, NIV or narcotic palliation alone
           Roca et al. [74]Retrospective37 lung transplant recipients with ARF who received NHF or SOTAbsolute risk reduction for mechanical ventilation with NHF therapy was 29.8% and the NNT to prevent one intubation with NHF was 3. NHF therapy was associated with a decreased risk of mechanical ventilation
          No benefit
           Lemiale et al. [75]Prospective, multicentre, parallel-group RCT100 immunocompromised patients with ARF, randomised to NHF or SOTNo significant difference regarding the need for invasive ventilation/NIV during the 2-h study period. Additionally, no significant difference reported regarding dyspnoea score, respiratory rate and heart rate
           Harada et al. [76]Retrospective56 patients with haematological malignancies with ARF under NHF treatment20% responded well to NHF therapy, while 80% failed, and they underwent a second-line therapy with invasive mechanical ventilation, NIV or narcotic palliation

          NIV: noninvasive ventilation; ICU: intensive care unit; SOT: standard oxygen treatment; NNT: number needed to treat; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

          PreviousNext
          Back to top
          View this article with LENS
          Vol 26 Issue 145 Table of Contents
          European Respiratory Review: 26 (145)
          • Table of Contents
          • Table of Contents (PDF)
          • Index by author
          Email

          Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

          NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

          Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
          Nasal high flow therapy: a novel treatment rather than a more expensive oxygen device
          (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
          (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
          CAPTCHA
          This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
          Print
          Citation Tools
          Nasal high flow therapy: a novel treatment rather than a more expensive oxygen device
          Eleni Ischaki, Ioannis Pantazopoulos, Spyros Zakynthinos
          European Respiratory Review Sep 2017, 26 (145) 170028; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0028-2017

          Citation Manager Formats

          • BibTeX
          • Bookends
          • EasyBib
          • EndNote (tagged)
          • EndNote 8 (xml)
          • Medlars
          • Mendeley
          • Papers
          • RefWorks Tagged
          • Ref Manager
          • RIS
          • Zotero

          Share
          Nasal high flow therapy: a novel treatment rather than a more expensive oxygen device
          Eleni Ischaki, Ioannis Pantazopoulos, Spyros Zakynthinos
          European Respiratory Review Sep 2017, 26 (145) 170028; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0028-2017
          del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
          Full Text (PDF)

          Jump To

          • Article
            • Abstract
            • Abstract
            • Introduction
            • Search criteria
            • Mechanisms of action
            • Clinical implications
            • Algorithm for clinical use
            • Future research
            • Conclusion
            • Footnotes
            • References
          • Figures & Data
          • Info & Metrics
          • PDF

          Subjects

          • Acute lung injury and critical care
          • Pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics
          • Respiratory clinical practice
          • Tweet Widget
          • Facebook Like
          • Google Plus One

          More in this TOC Section

          • Mucolytics for acute exacerbations of COPD: a meta-analysis
          • Targeting IL-33 and TSLP pathways for novel pulmonary therapeutics
          • Physical activity promotion interventions in chronic airways disease
          Show more Reviews

          Related Articles

          Navigate

          • Home
          • Current issue
          • Archive

          About the ERR

          • Journal information
          • Editorial board
          • Reviewers
          • Press
          • Permissions and reprints
          • Advertising
          • Sponsorship

          The European Respiratory Society

          • Society home
          • myERS
          • Privacy policy
          • Accessibility

          ERS publications

          • European Respiratory Journal
          • ERJ Open Research
          • European Respiratory Review
          • Breathe
          • ERS books online
          • ERS Bookshop

          Help

          • Feedback

          For authors

          • Instructions for authors
          • Publication ethics and malpractice
          • Submit a manuscript

          For readers

          • Alerts
          • Subjects
          • RSS

          Subscriptions

          • Accessing the ERS publications

          Contact us

          European Respiratory Society
          442 Glossop Road
          Sheffield S10 2PX
          United Kingdom
          Tel: +44 114 2672860
          Email: journals@ersnet.org

          ISSN

          Print ISSN: 0905-9180
          Online ISSN: 1600-0617

          Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society