Evaluation of a new interface combining high-flow nasal cannula and cpap

Eugenio Garofalo, Andrea Bruni, Corrado Pelaia, Gianmaria Cammarota, Paolo Murabito, Eugenio Biamonte, Karim Abdalla, Federico Longhini, Paolo Navalesi

Risultato della ricerca: Contributo su rivistaArticolo in rivistapeer review

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 μ 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.

Lingua originaleInglese
pagine (da-a)1231-1239
Numero di pagine9
RivistaRespiratory Care
Volume64
Numero di pubblicazione10
DOI
Stato di pubblicazionePubblicato - 1 ott 2019
Pubblicato esternamente

Fingerprint

Entra nei temi di ricerca di 'Evaluation of a new interface combining high-flow nasal cannula and cpap'. Insieme formano una fingerprint unica.

Cita questo