UNASSIGNED: Transnasal aerosol drug delivery has become widely accepted for treating acutely ill infants, children, and adults. More recently aerosol administration to wider populations receiving high and low-flow nasal oxygen has become common practice.
UNASSIGNED: Skepticism of insufficient aerosol delivery to the lungs has been tempered by multiple in vitro explorations of variables to optimize delivery efficiency. Additionally, clinical studies demonstrated comparable clinical responses to orally inhaled aerosols. This paper provides essential clinical guidance on how to improve transnasal aerosol delivery based on device-, settings-, and drug-related optimization to serve as a resource for educational initiatives and quality enhancement endeavors at healthcare institutions.
UNASSIGNED: Transnasal aerosol delivery is proliferating worldwide, but indiscriminate use of excessive-high flows, poor selection and placement of aerosol devices and circuits can greatly reduce aerosol delivery and efficacy, potentially compromising treatment to acute and critically ill patients. Attention to these details can improve inhaled dose by an order of magnitude, making the difference between effective treatment and the progression to more invasive ventilatory support, with greater inherent risk and cost. These revelations have prompted specific recommendations for optimal delivery, driving advancements in aerosol generators, formulations, and future device designs to administer aerosols and maximize treatment effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs. conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (by simple nasal cannula) as respiratory support after extubation on the rates of post-extubation airway obstruction (PEAO) among mechanically ventilated critically ill children.
METHODS: This open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a tertiary care teaching hospital in North India over a period of 7 mo (11 August 2021 to 10 March 2022). Children aged 3 mo to 12 y who required invasive mechanical ventilation for > 72 h and had passed spontaneous breathing trial (ready for extubation) were enrolled and randomized by computer generated block randomization to receive HFNC or COT after extubation. Primary outcome was rate of PEAO (assessed by modified Westley croup score, mWCS) within 48 h of extubation; and secondary outcomes were rate and number of adrenaline nebulization, treatment failure (requiring escalation of respiratory support), extubation failure, adverse events, and length of PICU stay in two groups.
RESULTS: During the study period, 116 children were enrolled (58 each in HFNC and COT groups). There was no difference in rate of PEAO (55% vs. 51.7%, respectively), need of adrenaline nebulization, extubation failure, adverse events, and duration of PICU stay in two groups. However, the HFNC group had significantly lower rates of treatment failure (27.6% vs. 48.3%, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of PEAO was similar in HFNC and COT groups. However, HFNC group had significantly lower rate of treatment failure requiring escalation of respiratory support.

UNASSIGNED: Non-invasive ventilation use is increasing in patients from acute respiratory failure. However, nutritional assessment and medical nutritional therapy are often missed and patients may be frequently underfed. This review evaluates the tools for nutritional screening and assessment, assesses the use of medical nutritional therapy in various techniques of non invasive ventilation and suggested tools to improve this therapy.
UNASSIGNED: A review of the literature was performed to evaluate the tools available to define malnutrition and determine the energy needs of patients requiring non invasive ventilation. Energy and protein intake was assessed in 16 recent papers. High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen therapy and non invasive ventilation using mask were described and nutritional therapy determined in each condition.
The Global Leadership International Malnutrition Assessment seems to be the best assessment to be recommended. Energy expenditure is optimally obtained by indirect calorimetry. Patients with Non invasive ventilation are even more underfed than patients receiving High Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen therapy.
UNASSIGNED: A better determination of malnutrition, a more adequate energy requirement and an improved energy and protein administration are required in patients with acute respiratory failure treated with non invasive ventilation.

BACKGROUND: A high-flow nasal cannula (cHFNC) delivers flow continuously (during inspiration and expiration). Using the diaphragm electrical activity (Edi), synchronizing HFNC could be an alternative (cycling high/low flow on inspiration/expiration, respectively). The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of synchronized HFNC (sHFNC) and compare it to cHFNC.
METHODS: Different levels of cHFNC and sHFNC (4, 6, 8, and 10 liters per minute [LPM], with 2 LPM on expiration for sHFNC) were compared in eight rabbits (mean weight 3.16 kg), before and after acute lung injury (pre-ALI and post-ALI). Edi, tracheal pressure (Ptr), esophageal pressure (Pes), flow, and arterial CO2 were measured. In addition to the animal study, one 3.52 kg infant received sHFNC and cHFNC using a Servo-U ventilator.
RESULTS: In the animal study, there were more pronounced decreases in Edi, reduced Pes swings and reduced PaCO2 at comparable flows during sHFNC compared to cHFNC both pre and post-ALI (p < .05). Baseline (pre-inspiratory) Ptr was 2-7 cmH2O greater during cHFNC (p < .05) indicating more dynamic hyperinflation. In one infant, the ventilator performed as expected, delivering Edi-synchronized high/low flow.
CONCLUSIONS: Synchronizing high flow unloaded breathing, decreased Edi, and reduced PaCO2 in an animal model and is feasible in infants.

UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical application effects of transnasal high flow nasal cannula compared to other conventional modalities for oxygen therapy devices in patients undergoing bronchoscopy.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in multiple English databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to collect relevant studies on the application of high flow nasal cannula in patients undergoing bronchoscopy, and conducted a meta-analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, following the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included, involving 1,631 patients (HFNC group: n = 811, other oxygen therapy group: n = 820). The meta-analysis results demonstrated that HFNC significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and improved the minimum oxygen saturation compared to conventional oxygen therapy (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41, p < 0.00001; MD = 6.09, 95% CI: 3.73-8.45, p < 0.00001). Furthermore, HFNC showed statistically significant differences when compared to non-invasive ventilation in terms of hypoxemia incidence (RR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.13-10.97, p = 0.03) and minimum oxygen saturation (MD = -1.97, 95% CI: -2.97--0.98, p < 0.0001). In addition, HFNC resulted in significantly shorter surgical time and higher PaO2 at the end of the procedure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (MD = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.66-2.40, p = 0.0006; MD = 15.52, 95% CI: 10.12-20.92, p < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in PaCO2, EtCO2, and MAP at the end of the procedure (MD = 1.23, 95% CI: -0.74-3.20, p = 0.22; MD = -0.35, 95% CI: -3.77-3.06, p = 0.84; MD = -0.54, 95% CI: -2.44-1.36, p = 0.58).
UNASSIGNED: When HFNC or NIV is utilized during the examination and treatment of bronchoscopy patients, both oxygenation modalities enhance oxygenation function and reduce the incidence of hypoxemia compared to conventional oxygen therapy. HFNC can be regarded as a viable alternative to NIV for specific high-risk patients undergoing bronchoscopy. It decreases the duration of bronchoscopy and improves the PaO2 levels at the end of the procedure, but does not significantly impact the PaCO2, EtCO2, and mean arterial pressure.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier 1414374462@qq.com.

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical effects of using transnasal high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2004 to April 2024 to collect relevant studies on the application of HFNC in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Multiple Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. RevMan 5.4 software was utilized for conducting the network meta-analysis.
A total of 12 RCTs involving 3,726 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that HFNC reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and improved the minimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) compared with COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.53], [mean difference (MD) = 4.07, 95% CI: 3.14-5.01], and the difference was statistically significant. However, the baseline SpO2 levels and incidence of hypercapnia were not statistically significantly different between the HFNC and COT groups [MD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.49-0.07]; [OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.95-2.15]. In terms of procedure time, the difference between HFNC and COT was not statistically significant, and subgroup analyses were performed for the different types of studies, with standard deviation in the gastroscopy group (MD = 0.09, 95% CI: -0.07-0.24) and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (MD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.50-1.23). The results demonstrated a significant reduction in the adoption of airway interventions in the HFNC group compared to the COT group (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05-0.53), with a statistically significant difference; this result was consistent with those of the included studies.
The application of HFNC improves the incidence of hypoxemia, enhances oxygenation, and reduces airway interventions during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, HFNC does not significantly affect baseline SpO2, hypercapnia, or procedure time. The limitations of this study must be acknowledged, and further high-quality studies should be conducted to validate these findings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the beneficial effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy during cesarean section in pregnant women with heart disease.
METHODS: We conducted a single-center, single-blinded randomized trial of HFNC oxygen therapy in pregnant women with heart disease undergoing cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia.The participants were randomly assigned to receive either HFNC oxygen therapy with inspiratory flow of 30 L/min with 40% FIO2(n=27) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) with oxygen flow rate of 5 L/min via a nasal cannula (n=31).The primary outcome was maternal desaturation (SpO2 < 94% lasting more than 3 min or PaO2/FIO2≤300 mmHg).
RESULTS: Maternal desaturation was observed in 7.4%(2/27) of the women in HFNC group and in 32.3%(10/31) in the COT group.None of the cases required tracheal intubation during the perioperative period.The HFNC group had a significantly higher incidence of postoperative leukocytosis (P < 0.05) but without pyrexia or other inflammation-related symptoms.There were no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary maternal outcomes (need for respiratory support, maternal ICU admission, postoperative respiratory complications, and cardiovascular complications) or neonatal outcomes (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with heart disease, HFNC therapy can significantly reduce the rate of maternal desaturation during the perioperative period of cesarean section without adverse effects on short-term maternal or fetal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study tests if the pressure variation in the HFNC-system may allow for monitoring of respiratory rate and the pressure difference during breathing may be a marker of respiratory effort.
METHODS: A HFNC system (Fisher & Paykel Optiflow Thrive 950) was modified by adding a GE Healthcare D-Lite spirometry sensor attached to a respiratory module and a pressure transducer. Participants were instructed to breathe regularly, quickly and slowly during 4 different conditions (HFNC flow 30 l/min and 70 l/min and with an open and closed mouth). Respiratory rate was counted based on pressure variation shown on the monitor graphs and compared with the count by observation of the participant. The pressure difference between inspiration and expiration was tested for correlation with the respiratory rate, as a surrogate marker for respiratory effort.
RESULTS: Twenty five participants were included in this study. False detection of apnea in pressure-based measurements occurred in 10% and 11% of the measurements with open mouth position at 30 l/min and 70 l/min HFNC-flow, respectively, but not with a closed mouth. The 95% Limits of Agreement were - 1.85;1.91, -13.72;9,88, -2.25;2.47, -30.32;19.93 for the conditions of 30 l/min -closed mouth, 30 l/min - open mouth, 70 l/min - closed mouth and 70 l/min - open mouth, respectively. There was a correlation between pressure difference and respiratory effort, except for the condition of 30 l/min with open mouth.
CONCLUSIONS: The pressure variation in the HFNC system allows for respiratory rate and effort monitoring, but requires further development to increase precision.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05991843).

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in infants is treated with low flow oxygen via nasal cannula (NC), CPAP (continous positive airway pressure), or surgery. Literature supports the use of high flow NC (HFNC) in children in the outpatient setting, however there is limited data on the use of HFNC in infants.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare HFNC and low-flow oxygen as treatments for OSA in infants.
METHODS: A prospective pilot study was performed at two institutions. Infants with primarily OSA underwent a 3-4 h sleep study with HFNC titration at 6-14 lpm for OSA, followed by clinical polysomnography (PSG) for oxygen titration (1/8-1 lpm). Infants with primarily central apnea were excluded.
RESULTS: Nine infants were enrolled, with a mean age of 1.3 ± 1.7 months. Average apnea hypopnea index (AHI), average obstructive apnea hypopnea index (OAHI) and average central apnea index during the diagnostic PSG was 17.2 ± 7/h, 13.4 ± 5.4/h and 3.7 ± 4.8/h respectively. OSA improved in 44.4% of subjects with HFNC; the mean AHI and OAHI decreased from 15.6 ± 5.65/h and 12.8 ± 4.4/h on diagnostic PSG to 5.12 ± 2.5/h and 4.25 ± 2.5/h on titration PSG. OSA improved universally with low flow oxygen; the mean AHI decreased from 17.2 ± 7/h on diagnostic PSG to 4.44 ± 3.6/h on titration PSG.
CONCLUSIONS: HFNC reduced OSA in some infants, though low flow oxygen reduced OSA in all subjects. Respiratory instability (high loop gain) in infants may explain why infants responded to low flow oxygen. More studies are needed to determine if HFNC is beneficial in selected groups of infants with OSA.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) introduction outside of Paediatric Critical Care Units (PCCU), on PCCU admissions and intubation rates. Secondarily, to identify escalation predictors.
METHODS: Retrospective observational study with matched PCCU admissions and intubation rates, 2-years before (Group 1) and 2-years after (Group 2) HFNC introduction outside of PCCU. Within Group 2, we compared those admitted to PCCU (escalation) and those who did not (non-escalation). Observations, change in observations and time to starting HFNC were analysed.
RESULTS: Pre- and post-introduction comparison: Of 980 admissions in Group 1, 55 were admitted to PCCU, whereas of 1209 admission in Group 2, there were 85 admissions, P = 0.188. Group 1 had 25 intubations compared to 23 in Group 2, P = 0.309. Over twice as many children had some form of respiratory support in Group 2. Post-introduction: 104 children commenced HFNC, 72% for bronchiolitis. Median age was 4 months in the non-escalation group and 6.5 months in the escalation group, P = 0.663. Thirty-eight children escalated to PCCU: 33 required CPAP/BiPAP, 4 were intubated with 1 remaining on HFNC. Comparisons of age, gender, comorbidities, observations, change in observations and time to starting HFNC showed no significant escalation predictors.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified no statistically significant predictors of escalation. There was an observed increase in PCCU admissions with decreased intubations. The resource implications of this therapy are significant and further studies should examine cost effectiveness of HFNC use outside of PCCU.