| Literature DB >> 30071876 |
Rosa Di Mussi1, Savino Spadaro2, Tania Stripoli1, Carlo Alberto Volta2, Paolo Trerotoli3, Paola Pierucci4, Francesco Staffieri5, Francesco Bruno1, Luigi Camporota6, Salvatore Grasso7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The physiological effects of high-flow nasal cannula O2 therapy (HFNC) have been evaluated mainly in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this study, we compared the effects of HFNC and conventional low-flow O2 therapy on the neuroventilatory drive and work of breathing postextubation in patients with a background of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had received mechanical ventilation for hypercapnic respiratory failure.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy; Neuroventilatory drive; Weaning from mechanical ventilation; Work of breathing
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30071876 PMCID: PMC6091018 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-2107-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Fig. 1Study protocol timeline. ABG arterial blood gas, Conventional O2 period of conventional low flow oxygen therapy through a non-occlusive face mask, EAdi diaphragm electrical activity, HFNC1 first period of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, HFNC2 second period of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy
Fig. 2Flow diagram of patient enrollment. COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, EAdi diaphragm electrical activity, NG nasogastric
Main patient characteristics
| Patient no. | Gender | Age (years) | SAPS II (at ICU admission) | SOFA (day of study) | Reason for admission to ICU | FEV1/FVC | FEV1 | GOLD stage | Days of MV | Reintubation | ICU length of stay (days) | Hospital outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 70 | 27 | 3 | COPD exacerbation | 63 | 30 | 3 | 4 | No | 7 | Survivor |
| 2 | M | 84 | 42 | 4 | Postoperative respiratory failure (abdominal sepsis) | 68 | 33 | 3 | 14 | No | 20 | Survivor |
| 3 | M | 70 | 40 | 7 | Hemorrhagic shock (trauma) | 48 | 53 | 2 | 12 | No | 14 | Survivor |
| 4 | M | 80 | 36 | 6 | COPD exacerbation | 42 | 55 | 2 | 11 | Yes | 29 | Nonsurvivor |
| 5 | M | 72 | 58 | 7 | COPD exacerbation | 62 | 55 | 2 | 8 | No | 10 | Survivor |
| 6 | F | 76 | 58 | 10 | Postoperative respiratory failure (abdominal sepsis) | 50 | 24 | 4 | 12 | No | 13 | Survivor |
| 7 | M | 58 | 50 | 10 | COPD exacerbation | 52 | 32 | 3 | 5 | No | 11 | Survivor |
| 8 | M | 78 | 43 | 5 | Postoperative respiratory failure (hip Fracture) | 59 | 27 | 4 | 3 | Yes | 25 | Nonsurvivor |
| 9 | F | 71 | 54 | 8 | COPD exacerbation | 47 | 25 | 4 | 4 | No | 6 | Survivor |
| 10 | M | 76 | 31 | 5 | Postoperative respiratory failure (abdominal sepsis) | 56 | 49 | 3 | 4 | No | 5 | Survivor |
| 11 | M | 64 | 29 | 3 | COPD exacerbation | 57 | 46 | 3 | 10 | Yes | 20 | Survivor |
| 12 | M | 50 | 10 | 2 | COPD exacerbation | 64 | 64 | 2 | 6 | No | 14 | Survivor |
| 13 | M | 78 | 35 | 4 | COPD exacerbation | 53 | 59 | 2 | 8 | Yes | 24 | Nonsurvivor |
| 14 | M | 74 | 42 | 5 | Postoperative respiratory failure (abdominal sepsis) | 44 | 64 | 2 | 4 | Yes | 23 | Nonsurvivor |
| Mean ± SD | 71.5 | 39.6 | 5.6 | 7.5 | Reintubation | Survival |
COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, F female, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FVC forced vital capacity, GOLD Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease, ICU intensive care unit, M male, MV mechanical ventilation, SAPS Simplified Acute Physiology Score, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment
Breathing pattern and gas exchange in different experimental conditions
| HFNC1 | Conventional O2 | HFNC2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RR (breaths/min) | 20.5 ± 2.9 | 21.4 ± 4 | 20.0 ± 1.9 |
| TiNEUR (s) | 0.92 ± 0.21 | 0.95 ± 0.22 | 0.92 ± 0.17 |
| pH | 7.45 ± 0.07 | 7.44 ± 0.08 | 7.46 ± 0.08 |
| PaCO2 (mmHg) | 49.9 ± 11.9 | 51.8 ± 12.7 | 50.1 ± 12.6 |
| HCO3− (mEq/L) | 30.9 ± 7.6 | 31.3 ± 7.8 | 31.4 ± 8.4 |
| PaO2 (mmHg) | 75.1 ± 6.9 | 72.9 ± 8.6 | 81.2 ± 8 |
| Applied FiO2a | 0.46 ± 10 | 0.80 ± 0.19b,c | 0.46 ± 0.12 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation
Conventional O conventional low flow oxygen therapy through a nonocclusive face mask, FiO inspiratory oxygen fraction, HFNC high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, PaCO arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure, PaO arterial partial oxygen pressure, RR respiratory rate, Ti neural inspiratory time
a The FiO2 delivered during conventional O2 therapy is overestimated since the patient’s inspiratory flow was higher than the mask flow (10 L/min) and, therefore, the difference between patient inspiratory flow and mask flow was taken by room air; this makes inappropriate any comparison between the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in the different experimental conditions
b Different from HFNC1, ANOVA, with Bonferroni correction
c Different from HFNC2, ANOVA, with Bonferroni correction
Fig. 3Experimental record showing the diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) in the three experimental conditions in three representative patients. Conventional O2 period of conventional low flow oxygen therapy through a non-occlusive face mask, HFNC1 first period of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, HFNC2 second period of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy
Neuroventilatory drive and work of breathing parameters
| HFNC1 | Conventional O2 | HFNC2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EAdiPEAK (μV) | 15.4 ± 6.4 | 23.6 ± 10.5a,b | 15.2 ± 6.4 |
| EAdiPTP (μV/s) | 13.7 ± 6.5 | 21.1 ± 11.8a,b | 12.1 ± 5.2 |
| EAdiSLOPE | 18.6 ± 6.5 | 24 ± 14.7a,b | 17.6 ± 10.2 |
| PTPDI/b (cmH2O/s) | 6.7 ± 2.7 | 9.9 ± 3.1a,b | 6.7 ± 2.8 |
| PTPDI/min (cmH2O/s/min) | 135 ± 60 | 211 ± 70a,b | 132 ± 56 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation
Conventional O conventional low flow oxygen therapy through a nonocclusive face mask, EAdi diaphragm electrical activity peak, EAdi EAdi deflection inspiratory area, EAdi EAdi slope from the beginning of inspiration to EAdiPEAK, HFNC high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, PTP inspiratory trans-diaphragmatic pressure-time product per breath, PTP inspiratory trans-diaphragmatic pressure-time product per minute
a Different from HFNC1, ANOVA, with Bonferroni correction
b Different from HFNC2, ANOVA, with Bonferroni correction
Fig. 4Trend of the neuroventilatory drive, as expressed by the diaphragm electrical activity peak EAdiPEAK, and of work of breathing, as expressed by the inspiratory PDI pressure-time product per breath (PTPDI/b) and per minute (PTPDI/min). *Significant difference compared to the HFNC1 period (ANOVA with Bonferroni correction); §Significant difference compared to the HFNC2 period (ANOVA with Bonferroni correction). Conventional O2 period of conventional low flow oxygen therapy through a non-occlusive face mask, HFNC1 first period of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, HFNC2 second period of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy