Martin Thomas1,2, Riddhi Joshi3, Grant Cave4,5. 1. Department of Cardiology, Dubbo Base Hospital, Dubbo, NSW 2830, Australia. 2. Department of Intensive Care, Tamworth Base Hospital, North Tamworth, NSW 2340, Australia. 3. Department of Anaesthesia, Dubbo Base Hospital, Dubbo, NSW 2830, Australia. 4. Dubbo Base Hospital, Dubbo, NSW 2830, Australia. 5. Hawkes Bay District Health Board, Hastings, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High flow tracheostomy (HFT) is a commonly used weaning and humidification strategy for tracheostomised patients, but little is known as to how much PEEP or mechanical benefit it offers. Patient anatomy and device characteristics differentiate it from high flow nasal cannula and the physiological effects observed. OBJECTIVES: (1) To review the available literature on the effects of HFT on airway pressure and indices of gas exchange. (2) To quantify PEEP generated by a HFT circuit. METHODS: A randomised benchtop experiment was conducted, with a size 8 uncuffed Portex tracheostomy connected to an Optiflow™ with Airvo 2™ humidifier system. The tracheostomy tube was partially immersed in water to give rise to a column of water within the inner surface of the tube. An air fluid interface was generated with flows of 40 L/min, 50 L/min, and 60 L/min. The amount of potential PEEP (pPEEP) generated was determined by the distance the water column was pushed downward by the flow delivered. Findings. Overall 40 L/min, 50 L/min, and 60 L/min provided pPEEP of approximately 0.3 cmH2O, 0.5 cmH2O, and 0.9 cmH2O, respectively. There was a statistically significant change in pPEEP with change in flows from 40-60 L/min with an average change in pPEEP of 0.25-0.35 cmH2O per 10 L/min flow (p value <0.01). Interpretation. HFT can generate measurable and variable PEEP despite the open system used. The pPEEP generated with HFT is minimal despite statistically significant change with increasing flows. This pPEEP is unlikely to provide mechanical benefit in weaning patients off ventilatory support.
BACKGROUND: High flow tracheostomy (HFT) is a commonly used weaning and humidification strategy for tracheostomised patients, but little is known as to how much PEEP or mechanical benefit it offers. Patient anatomy and device characteristics differentiate it from high flow nasal cannula and the physiological effects observed. OBJECTIVES: (1) To review the available literature on the effects of HFT on airway pressure and indices of gas exchange. (2) To quantify PEEP generated by a HFT circuit. METHODS: A randomised benchtop experiment was conducted, with a size 8 uncuffed Portex tracheostomy connected to an Optiflow™ with Airvo 2™ humidifier system. The tracheostomy tube was partially immersed in water to give rise to a column of water within the inner surface of the tube. An air fluid interface was generated with flows of 40 L/min, 50 L/min, and 60 L/min. The amount of potential PEEP (pPEEP) generated was determined by the distance the water column was pushed downward by the flow delivered. Findings. Overall 40 L/min, 50 L/min, and 60 L/min provided pPEEP of approximately 0.3 cmH2O, 0.5 cmH2O, and 0.9 cmH2O, respectively. There was a statistically significant change in pPEEP with change in flows from 40-60 L/min with an average change in pPEEP of 0.25-0.35 cmH2O per 10 L/min flow (p value <0.01). Interpretation. HFT can generate measurable and variable PEEP despite the open system used. The pPEEP generated with HFT is minimal despite statistically significant change with increasing flows. This pPEEP is unlikely to provide mechanical benefit in weaning patients off ventilatory support.
Authors: Amanda Corley; Melannie Edwards; Amy J Spooner; Kimble R Dunster; Chris Anstey; John F Fraser Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Anuj B Mehta; Sohera N Syeda; Lisa Bajpayee; Colin R Cooke; Allan J Walkey; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Tania Stripoli; Savino Spadaro; Rosa Di Mussi; Carlo Alberto Volta; Paolo Trerotoli; Francesca De Carlo; Rachele Iannuzziello; Fabio Sechi; Paola Pierucci; Francesco Staffieri; Francesco Bruno; Luigi Camporota; Salvatore Grasso Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Daniele Natalini; Domenico L Grieco; Maria Teresa Santantonio; Lucrezia Mincione; Flavia Toni; Gian Marco Anzellotti; Davide Eleuteri; Pierluigi Di Giannatale; Massimo Antonelli; Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 6.925