Eugenio Garofalo1, Andrea Bruni1, Corrado Pelaia1, Gianmaria Cammarota2, Paolo Murabito3, Eugenio Biamonte4, Karim Abdalla1, Federico Longhini5, Paolo Navalesi1. 1. Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Mater Domini, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy. 2. Anesthesia and Intensive Care, "Maggiore della Carità" Hospital, Novara, Italy. 3. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 4. Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Mater Domini, Catanzaro, Italy. 5. Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Mater Domini, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy. longhini.federico@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effects of a new interface that combined CPAP 10 cm H2O by using a helmet with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at varying flows in healthy volunteers. Outcome measures included pharyngeal pressures, diaphragm kinetics, breathing frequency, the temperature inside the helmet, and comfort. METHODS: After baseline assessment during spontaneous breathing, HFNC was applied at flows of 30, 40, and 50 L/min. Successively, the volunteers underwent helmet CPAP at 10 cm H2O and CPAP + HFNC at flows of 30, 40, and 50 L/min. We measured the variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-expiration and end-inspiration, referenced to spontaneous breathing for HFNC and to CPAP for CPAP + HFNC, diaphragm displacement and thickness at end-expiration and thickness at end-inspiration, breathing frequency, the temperature inside the helmet, the occurrence of the fog effect, and comfort. RESULTS: Variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-inspiration changes were small overall and clinically unimportant. With the mouth closed, at increasing HFNC flow, variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-expiration increased during both HFNC (from 2.8 up to 7.7) and, to a lesser extent, CPAP + HFNC (from 2.7 up to 3.8) (P < .001 for all comparisons). These variations were attenuated during open-mouth breathing. HFNC ≥ 40 L/min and CPAP + HFNC ≥ 40 L/min compared with spontaneous breathing and CPAP, respectively, increased diaphragm displacement (P = .001), thickness at end-inspiration and thickness at end-expiration (P < .003 for both). At all flows, breathing frequency was slightly, although significantly, lower with CPAP + HFNC than with HFNC alone (P < .003). The temperature inside the helmet increased slightly and insignificantly at flows of ≤40 L/min with CPAP + HFNC compared with CPAP alone. The fog effect never occurred, whereas comfort was always rated as optimal, without differences between trials. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP + HFNC was well tolerated, with no adverse effects. Based on our findings, there was no need to vary the CPAP level when adding HFNC. At least in healthy subjects, CPAP + HFNC at 30 L/min seemed to be the best combination.
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effects of a new interface that combined CPAP 10 cm H2O by using a helmet with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at varying flows in healthy volunteers. Outcome measures included pharyngeal pressures, diaphragm kinetics, breathing frequency, the temperature inside the helmet, and comfort. METHODS: After baseline assessment during spontaneous breathing, HFNC was applied at flows of 30, 40, and 50 L/min. Successively, the volunteers underwent helmet CPAP at 10 cm H2O and CPAP + HFNC at flows of 30, 40, and 50 L/min. We measured the variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-expiration and end-inspiration, referenced to spontaneous breathing for HFNC and to CPAP for CPAP + HFNC, diaphragm displacement and thickness at end-expiration and thickness at end-inspiration, breathing frequency, the temperature inside the helmet, the occurrence of the fog effect, and comfort. RESULTS: Variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-inspiration changes were small overall and clinically unimportant. With the mouth closed, at increasing HFNC flow, variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-expiration increased during both HFNC (from 2.8 up to 7.7) and, to a lesser extent, CPAP + HFNC (from 2.7 up to 3.8) (P < .001 for all comparisons). These variations were attenuated during open-mouth breathing. HFNC ≥ 40 L/min and CPAP + HFNC ≥ 40 L/min compared with spontaneous breathing and CPAP, respectively, increased diaphragm displacement (P = .001), thickness at end-inspiration and thickness at end-expiration (P < .003 for both). At all flows, breathing frequency was slightly, although significantly, lower with CPAP + HFNC than with HFNC alone (P < .003). The temperature inside the helmet increased slightly and insignificantly at flows of ≤40 L/min with CPAP + HFNC compared with CPAP alone. The fog effect never occurred, whereas comfort was always rated as optimal, without differences between trials. CONCLUSIONS:CPAP + HFNC was well tolerated, with no adverse effects. Based on our findings, there was no need to vary the CPAP level when adding HFNC. At least in healthy subjects, CPAP + HFNC at 30 L/min seemed to be the best combination.
Authors: Eugenio Garofalo; Andrea Bruni; Corrado Pelaia; Giovanni Landoni; Alberto Zangrillo; Massimo Antonelli; Giorgio Conti; Daniele Guerino Biasucci; Giovanna Mercurio; Andrea Cortegiani; Antonino Giarratano; Luigi Vetrugno; Tiziana Bove; Francesco Forfori; Francesco Corradi; Rosanna Vaschetto; Gianmaria Cammarota; Marinella Astuto; Paolo Murabito; Valentina Bellini; Massimo Zambon; Federico Longhini; Paolo Navalesi; Elena Bignami Journal: Ultrasound J Date: 2019-10-03
Authors: F Longhini; A Bruni; E Garofalo; P Navalesi; G Grasselli; R Cosentini; G Foti; A Mattei; M Ippolito; G Accurso; F Vitale; A Cortegiani; C Gregoretti Journal: Pulmonology Date: 2020-04-30