Skip to main content

Nasal high-flow oxygen in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation

Introduction

This study compared a nasal high-flow oxygen therapy (NHFO2) with conventional oxygen therapy via a Venturi mask (VM) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. Study endpoints were functional respiratory parameters, dyspnea, patient comfort and a global rating by the patients.

Methods

We included 14 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure (paO2 <55 mmHg under room air). Exclusion criteria were ventilatory failure, hemodynamic instability, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, NIV contraindications and inability to cooperate. Patients were treated in a randomized order for 30 minutes each with NHFO2 (Optiflow®; Fisher-Paykel), VM or NIV, using a FiO2 of 0.6. Every treatment phase was preceded by a 15-minute baseline phase in which the patients received oxygen via a standard nasal prong (SaO2 goal >88%). At the end of each treatment phase vital signs and blood gases were measured and patients rated their dyspnea and their general comfort on a 10-point scale. Finally, patients were ask for a global rating of all three devices ranging from 1 (very good) to 6 (failed) and could choose one device for further treatment.

Results

The paO2 was highest under NIV with 129 ± 38 mmHg, followed by NHFO2 (101 ± 34 mmHg, P < 0.01 vs. NIV) and VM (85 ± 21 mmHg, P < 0.001 vs. NIV, P < 0.01 vs. NHFO2, ANOVA). All other vital and blood gas parameters did not show significant differences. Dyspnea rating on a 10-point Borg scale was significantly better under NHFO2 (2.9 ± 2.1) and VM (3.3 ± 2.3) compared to NIV (5.0 ± 3.3) (P < 0.05, vs. NHFO2 or VM). Comfort rating showed similar results: NHFO2 2.7 ± 1.8; VM 3.1 ± 2.8; NIV 5.4 ± 3.1 (P < 0.05, NIV vs. NHFO2 or VM). In the final global rating using German school grades from 1 to 6 NHFO2 also received the best rating (2.3 ± 1.4), followed by VM (3.2 ± 1.7, P = NS vs. NHFO2) and NIV (4.5 ± 1.7, P < 0.01 vs. NHFO2 and P < 0.05 vs. VM). For further treatment 10 patients chose NHFO2, three VM and one NIV.

Conclusion

NHFO2 is a promising new device for oxygen supply in respiratory failure, offering better oxygenation than the VM and better patient comfort and tolerance than NIV.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R Riessen.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Riessen, R., Schwabbauer, N., Berg, B. et al. Nasal high-flow oxygen in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation. Crit Care 16, P136 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc10743

Download citation

Keywords

  • Global Rating
  • Respiratory Parameter
  • Noninvasive Ventilation
  • Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema
  • Nasal Prong