Rationale: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Objectives: Physiological comparison of HFNC and helmet NIV in patients with hypoxemia. Methods:Fifteen patients with hypoxemia with PaO2/FiO2 <; 200 mm Hg received helmet NIV (positive end-expiratory pressure ≥ 10 cm H2O, pressure support = 10-15 cm H2O) and HFNC (50 L/min) in randomized crossover order. Arterial blood gases, dyspnea, and comfort were recorded. Inspiratory effort was estimated by esophageal pressure (Pes) swings. Pes-simplified pressure-time product and transpulmonary pressure swings were measured.Measurements and Main Results: As compared with HFNC, helmet NIV increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [interquartile range]: 255 mm Hg [140-299] vs. 138 [101-172]; P = 0.001) and lowered inspiratory effort (7 cm H2O [4-11] vs. 15 [8-19]; P = 0.001) in all patients. Inspiratory effort reduction by NIV was linearly related to inspiratory effort during HFNC (r = 0.84; P < 0.001). Helmet NIV reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [23-31] vs. 29 [26-32]; P = 0.027), Pes-simplified pressure-time product (93 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min-1 [43-138] vs. 200 [168-335]; P = 0.001), and dyspnea (visual analog scale 3 [2-5] vs. 8 [6-9]; P = 0.002), without affecting PaCO2 (P = 0.80) and comfort (P = 0.50). In the overall cohort, transpulmonary pressure swings were not different between treatments (NIV = 18 cmH2O [14-21] vs. HFNC = 15 [8-19]; P = 0.11), but patients exhibiting lower inspiratory effort on HFNC experienced increases in transpulmonary pressure swings with helmet NIV. Higher transpulmonary pressure swings during NIV were associated with subsequent need for intubation.Conclusions: As compared with HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure, helmet NIV improves oxygenation, reduces dyspnea, inspiratory effort, and simplified pressure-time product, with similar transpulmonary pressure swings, PaCO2, and comfort.
RCT Entities:
Rationale: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Objectives: Physiological comparison of HFNC and helmet NIV in patients with hypoxemia. Methods: Fifteen patients with hypoxemia with PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mm Hg received helmet NIV (positive end-expiratory pressure ≥ 10 cm H2O, pressure support = 10-15 cm H2O) and HFNC (50 L/min) in randomized crossover order. Arterial blood gases, dyspnea, and comfort were recorded. Inspiratory effort was estimated by esophageal pressure (Pes) swings. Pes-simplified pressure-time product and transpulmonary pressure swings were measured.Measurements and Main Results: As compared with HFNC, helmet NIV increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [interquartile range]: 255 mm Hg [140-299] vs. 138 [101-172]; P = 0.001) and lowered inspiratory effort (7 cm H2O [4-11] vs. 15 [8-19]; P = 0.001) in all patients. Inspiratory effort reduction by NIV was linearly related to inspiratory effort during HFNC (r = 0.84; P < 0.001). Helmet NIV reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [23-31] vs. 29 [26-32]; P = 0.027), Pes-simplified pressure-time product (93 cm H2O ⋅ s ⋅ min-1 [43-138] vs. 200 [168-335]; P = 0.001), and dyspnea (visual analog scale 3 [2-5] vs. 8 [6-9]; P = 0.002), without affecting PaCO2 (P = 0.80) and comfort (P = 0.50). In the overall cohort, transpulmonary pressure swings were not different between treatments (NIV = 18 cm H2O [14-21] vs. HFNC = 15 [8-19]; P = 0.11), but patients exhibiting lower inspiratory effort on HFNC experienced increases in transpulmonary pressure swings with helmet NIV. Higher transpulmonary pressure swings during NIV were associated with subsequent need for intubation.Conclusions: As compared with HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure, helmet NIV improves oxygenation, reduces dyspnea, inspiratory effort, and simplified pressure-time product, with similar transpulmonary pressure swings, PaCO2, and comfort.
Authors: Amanda Corley; Claire M Rickard; Leanne M Aitken; Amy Johnston; Adrian Barnett; John F Fraser; Sharon R Lewis; Andrew F Smith Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-30
Authors: Yaseen M Arabi; Sara Aldekhyl; Saad Al Qahtani; Hasan M Al-Dorzi; Sheryl Ann Abdukahil; Mohammed Khulaif Al Harbi; Eman Al Qasim; Ayman Kharaba; Talal Albrahim; Mohammed S Alshahrani; Abdulrahman A Al-Fares; Ali Al Bshabshe; Ahmed Mady; Zainab Al Duhailib; Haifa Algethamy; Jesna Jose; Mohammed Al Mutairi; Omar Al Zumai; Hussain Al Haji; Ahmed Alaqeily; Zohair Al Aseri; Awad Al-Omari; Abdulaziz Al-Dawood; Haytham Tlayjeh Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Robinder G Khemani; Jessica T Lee; David Wu; Edward J Schenck; Margaret M Hayes; Patricia A Kritek; Gökhan M Mutlu; Hayley B Gershengorn; Rémi Coudroy Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Arianne K Baldomero; Anne C Melzer; Nancy Greer; Brittany N Majeski; Roderick MacDonald; Eric J Linskens; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elena Spinelli; Tommaso Mauri; Jeremy R Beitler; Antonio Pesenti; Daniel Brodie Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Domenico Luca Grieco; Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore; Oriol Roca; Elena Spinelli; Bhakti K Patel; Arnaud W Thille; Carmen Sílvia V Barbas; Marina Garcia de Acilu; Salvatore Lucio Cutuli; Filippo Bongiovanni; Marcelo Amato; Jean-Pierre Frat; Tommaso Mauri; John P Kress; Jordi Mancebo; Massimo Antonelli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 17.440