M L Vega1, R Dongilli2, G Olaizola3, N Colaianni4, M C Sayat4, L Pisani5, M Romagnoli6, G Spoladore7, I Prediletto5, G Montiel8, S Nava9. 1. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support Unit, Hospital Juan A. Fernández, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina; IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria, Division of Respiratory and Critical Care SantOrsola Hospital, Bologna Italia. 2. Division of Respiratory Diseases with intermediate respiratory intensive care units, Central Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy. 3. Unidad Asistencial Cesar Milstein. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina. 4. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support Unit, Hospital Juan A. Fernández, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina; Intensive Care Unit, Clínica Zabala, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina. 5. IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria, Division of Respiratory and Critical Care SantOrsol Hospital, Bologna Italia. Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna Department of Clinical, Integrated and Experimental Medicine (DIMES), Bologna, Italy. 6. Pulmonology Unit, Santa Maria di Ca' Foncello Hospital, Treviso, Italy. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases, Central Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy. 8. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support Unit, Hospital Juan A. Fernández, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Argentina. 9. IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria, Division of Respiratory and Critical Care SantOrsol Hospital, Bologna Italia. Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna Department of Clinical, Integrated and Experimental Medicine (DIMES), Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: stefano.nava@unibo.it.
We thank Dr. Garnier and Dr Blez for their careful reading of our study and their useful commentsWe agree with them that we may have misinterpreted their setting of High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC), and we apologize for the misunderstanding. It makes obviously sense that the flow was delivered at 60 L/min.Concerning the point of respiratory rate, we think that it is a matter of wording. We believe our statement "ROX H12 had a greater predictive value than respiratory rate alone, in contrast with Blez et al.” is true, because in their article, the authors reported an AUROC of RR of 0.81, that is superior to 0.78 (AUROC of ROX). It is a matter of mathematics, despite not being statistically significant. On the other hand, we are a bit concerned about the title of their manuscript "....better look at the respiratory rate". We strongly believe that "two is better than one" in particular in patients with COVID-19infections. The pathophysiology of Acute Respiratory Failure during this pandemic is complex and not fully understood. Everyone dealing with these patients has noticed that the respiratory frequency and tidal volume may be affected differently in specific subgroups of patients. Increases in tidal volume are presumably due to higher recruitment of respiratory premotor neurons, whereas changes in frequency may be related to the network activity of the neurons located in the pre-Botzinger complex. In addition, COVID-19patients with similar oxygenation efficiency may have markedly different compliance. This makes the combination of respiratory pattern and respiratory mechanics complex and multifactorial. Not surprisingly, a consistent group of patients may show the so-called “non-dyspnogenic acute hypoxia” while others, for the same level of PaO2, show an important distress. Obviously respiratory pattern may influence the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, but SaO2 is also determined by the efficiency of the a-c membrane. So to make a long story short, it is not only a matter of “less is more”.Indeed, Drs Garnier and Blez argued that the ROX H12 "is a time point too late to really impact management in case of failure". The median time of HFNC failure, however, has been reported to vary but it is on average >24 h.5, 6, 7 Thus, this may suggest that a ROXH12 may give the clinician a better overview of the patient's outcomes, than a more praecox measurement.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
Authors: Gregory L Calligaro; Usha Lalla; Gordon Audley; Phindile Gina; Malcolm G Miller; Marc Mendelson; Sipho Dlamini; Sean Wasserman; Graeme Meintjes; Jonathan Peter; Dion Levin; Joel A Dave; Ntobeko Ntusi; Stuart Meier; Francesca Little; Desiree L Moodley; Elizabeth H Louw; Andre Nortje; Arifa Parker; Jantjie J Taljaard; Brian W Allwood; Keertan Dheda; Coenraad F N Koegelenberg Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2020-10-06
Authors: Nicholas Russell Plummer; Andrew Fogarty; Dominick Shaw; Timothy Card; Joe West; Colin Crooks Journal: Respir Med Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 4.582
Authors: Amit Kansal; Wei Jun Dan Ong; Shekhar Dhanvijay; Arbe Tisha Pepito Siosana; Loraine Mae Padillo; Chee Keat Tan; Monika Gulati Kansal; Faheem Ahmed Khan Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 3.320
Authors: Sergey N Avdeev; Andrey I Yaroshetskiy; Galia S Nuralieva; Zamira M Merzhoeva; Natalia V Trushenko Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 4.093