High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is extensively used for acute respiratory failure. However, questions remain regarding its physiological effects. We explored 1) whether HFNC produced similar effects to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); 2) possible explanations of respiratory rate changes; 3) the effects of mouth opening. Two studies were conducted: a bench study using a manikin's head with lungs connected to a breathing simulator while delivering HFNC flow rates from 0 to 60L/min; a physiological cross-over study in 10 healthy volunteers receiving HFNC (20 to 60L/min) with the mouth open or closed and CPAP 4cmH2O delivered through face-mask. Nasopharyngeal and esophageal pressures were measured; tidal volume and flow were estimated using calibrated electrical impedance tomography. In the bench study, nasopharyngeal pressure at end-expiration reached 4cmH2O with HFNC at 60L/min, while tidal volume decreased with increasing flow. In volunteers with HFNC at 60L/min, nasopharyngeal pressure reached 6.8cmH2O with mouth closed and 0.8cmH2O with mouth open; p<0.001. When increasing HFNC flow, respiratory rate decreased by lengthening expiratory time, tidal volume did not change, and effort decreased (pressure-time product of the respiratory muscles); at 40L/min, effort was equivalent between CPAP and HFNC40L/min and became lower at 60L/min (p=0.045). During HFNC with mouth closed, and not during CPAP, resistance to breathing was increased, mostly during expiration. In conclusion, mouth closure during HFNC induces a positive nasopharyngeal pressure proportional to flow rate and an increase in expiratory resistance that might explain the prolonged expiration and reduction in respiratory rate and effort, and contribute to physiological benefits.
Background Prolonged need for mechanical ventilation greatly impacts life expectancy of patients after spinal cord injury (SCI). Weaning outcomes have never been systematically assessed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the probability of weaning success, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, and their predictors in mechanically ventilated patients with SCI. Methods We searched six databases from inception until August 2021 for randomized-controlled trials and observational studies enrolling adult patients (≥ 16 years) with SCI from any cause requiring mechanical ventilation. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts of the identified articles were then assessed for eligibility. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by pairs of authors, using a standardized data collection form. Synthetic results are reported as meta-analytic means and proportions, based on random effects models. Results Thirty-nine studies (14,637 patients, mean age 43) were selected. Cervical lesions were predominant (12,717 patients had cervical lesions only, 1843 in association with other levels’ lesions). Twenty-five studies were conducted in intensive care units (ICUs), 14 in rehabilitative settings. In ICU, the mean time from injury to hospitalization was 8 h [95% CI 7–9], mean duration of mechanical ventilation 27 days [20–34], probability of weaning success 63% [45–78] and mortality 8% [5–11]. Patients hospitalized in rehabilitation centres had a greater number of high-level lesions (C3 or above), were at 40 days [29–51] from injury and were ventilated for a mean of 97 days [65–128]; 82% [70–90] of them were successfully weaned, while mortality was 1% [0–19]. Conclusions Although our study highlights the lack of uniform definition of weaning success, of clear factors associated with weaning outcomes, and of high-level evidence to guide optimal weaning in patients with SCI, it shows that around two-thirds of mechanically ventilated patients can be weaned in ICU after SCI. A substantial gain in weaning success can be obtained during rehabilitation, with additional duration of stay but minimal increase in mortality. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020156788).
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a need for innovative, inexpensive, and simple ventilator devices for mass use has emerged. The Oxylator is an FDA approved, fist-size, ultra-light, portable ventilation device developed for out-of-hospital emergency ventilation. It has not been tested in conditions of severe lung injury or with added PEEP. Objectives: 1) To assess the performance and reliability of the device in simulated and experimental conditions of severe lung injury, and 2) to derive monitoring methods allowing the delivery of a safe individualized ventilation during situations of surge. Methods: Functioning of the device with added PEEP valve was extensively tested on a bench, mimicking adult patients with various respiratory mechanics during controlled ventilation, spontaneous breathing, and prolonged unstable conditions where mechanics and/or breathing effort was changed at every breath. The device was further tested on a porcine model (n=4) with normal lungs and after inducing lung injury and was compared with conventional ventilation modes. Results: The device was stable and predictable: it delivered a constant flow (30 L/min) and cycled automatically at the inspiratory pressure set (minimum of 20 cmH 2 O) above auto-PEEP. Changes in respiratory mechanics manifested as changes in respiratory timing, allowing prediction of tidal volumes from respiratory rate. Simulating lung injury resulted in relatively low tidal volumes (330 mL with compliance of 20 mL/cmH 2 O). In the porcine model, arterial oxygenation, CO 2 and pH were comparable to conventional modes of ventilation. Conclusion: The Oxylator is a simple device that delivers stable ventilation with tidal volumes within a clinically acceptable range in bench and porcine lung models with low compliance. External monitoring of respiratory timing is advisable, allowing tidal volume estimation and recognition of changes in respiratory mechanics. The device can be an efficient, low-cost practical rescue solution for providing ventilatory support as a temporary bridge but requires a caregiver at bedside.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.