BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease affecting 1-29% of the population in different countries. Exacerbations represent a change in symptoms and lung function from the patient\'s usual condition that requires emergency department (ED) admission. Recently, the use of a High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) plus an in-line vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN) for aerosol drug delivery has been advocated in clinical practice. Thus, this pilot observational study aims to investigate the feasibility of HFNC treatment with VMN for in-line bronchodilator delivery in patients with severe asthma.
METHODS: This study was conducted from May 2022 to May 2023. Subjects ≥ 18 years old with a previous diagnosis of asthma who were admitted to the ED during severe exacerbation were included. The primary endpoint was the change in peak expiratory flow ratio (PEFR) after 2-h of treatment with bronchodilator delivered by HFNC with in-line VMN. Additional outcomes were changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and clinical variables before treatment.
RESULTS: 30 patients mean age of 43 (SD ± 16) years, mostly female (67%) were studied. A significant change in PEFR (147 ± 31 L/m vs. 220 ± 38 L/m; p < 0.001) was observed after treatment with HFNC and in-line VMN with significant improvement in clinical variables. And no subjects required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the study.
CONCLUSIONS: HFNC treatment with in-line VMN for bronchodilator delivery appears feasible and safe for patients with severe asthma exacerbation. These preliminary promising results should be confirmed with appropriately large-designed studies.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy [HFNC] on the diaphragm thickening fraction.
METHODS: Prospective, descriptive, cohort study SETTING: The study was conducted in the Physiology and Respiratory Care Laboratory, Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Británico de Buenos Aires.
METHODS: Thirteen healthy subjects >18 years old INTERVENTIONS: High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Demographic data (age and gender), anthropometric data (weight, height, and body mass index), and clinical and respiratory variables (Diaphragm thickening fraction [DTf], esophageal pressure swing, respiratory rate [RR], esophageal pressure-time product per minute [PTPes/min]).
RESULTS: Median DTf decreased significantly as flow increased (p < 0.05). The baseline DTf measurement was 21.4 %, 18.3 % with 20 L/m, and 16.4 % with 40 L/m. We also observed a significant decrease in RR as flow increased in HFNC (p < 0.05). In the 8 subjects with recordings, the PTPes/min was 81.3 (±30.8) cmH2O/sec/min and 64.4 (±25.3) cmH2O/sec/min at baseline and 40 L/m respectively (p = 0.044).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of high-flow oxygen therapy through nasal cannula of HFNC in healthy subjects decreases the DTf and RR in association with increased flow. In addition, the use of 40 L/m flow may reduce the muscular work associated with respiration.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) systems employ different methods to provide aerosol to patients. This study compared delivery efficiency, particle size, and regional deposition of aerosolized bronchodilators during HFNC in neonatal, pediatric, and adult upper-airway and lung models between a proximal aerosol adapter and distal aerosol circuit chamber.
METHODS: A filter was connected to the upper airway to a spontaneously breathing lung model. Albuterol was nebulized using the aerosol adapter and circuit at different clinical flow settings. The aerosol mass deposited in the upper airway and lung was quantified. Particle size was measured with a laser diffractometer. Regional deposition was assessed with a gamma camera at each nebulizer location and patient model with minimum flow settings.
RESULTS: Inhaled lung doses ranged from 0.2-0.8% for neonates, 0.2-2.2% for the small child, and 0.5-5.2% for the adult models. Neonatal inhaled lung doses were not different between the aerosol circuit and adapter, but the aerosol circuit showed marginally greater lung doses in the pediatric and adult patient models. Impacted aerosols and condensation in the non-heated HFNC and aerosol delivery components contributed to the dispersion of coarse liquid droplets, high deposition (11-44%), and occlusion of the supine neonatal upper airway. In contrast, the upright pediatric and adult upper-airway models had minimal deposition (0.3-7.0%) and high fugitive losses (∼24%) from liquid droplets leaking out of the nose. The high impactive losses in the aerosol adapter (56%) were better contained than in the aerosol circuit, resulting in less cannula sputter (5% vs 22%), fewer fugitive losses (18% vs 24%), and smaller inhaled aerosols (5 µm vs 13 µm).
CONCLUSIONS: The inhaled lung dose was low (1-5%) during HFNC. Approaches that streamline aerosol delivery are needed to provide safe and effective therapy to patients receiving aerosolized medications with this HFNC system.

OBJECTIVE: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining popularity for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of HFNC for hypoxemic ARF in patients with blunt chest trauma (BCT).
METHODS: This retrospective analysis focused on BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF who were treated with either HFNC or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency medicine department from January 2021 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either invasive ventilation, or a switch to the other study treatment (NIV for patients in the NFNC group, and vice-versa).
RESULTS: A total of 157 patients with BCT (72 in the HFNC group and 85 in the NIV group) were included in this study. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 11.1% and 16.5% in the NIV group - risk difference of 5.36% (95% CI, -5.94-16.10%; P = 0.366). The most common cause of failure in the HFNC group was aggravation of respiratory distress. While in the NIV group, the most common reason for failure was treatment intolerance. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (1.4% vs 9.4%, 95% CI 0.40-16.18; P = 0.039). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that chronic respiratory disease, abbreviated injury scale score (chest) (≥3), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (≥15), partial arterial oxygen tension /fraction of inspired oxygen (≤200) at 1 h of treatment and respiratory rate (≥32 /min) at 1 h of treatment were risk factors associated with HFNC failure.
CONCLUSIONS: In BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF, the usage of HFNC did not lead to higher rate of treatment failure when compared to NIV. HFNC was found to offer better comfort and tolerance than NIV, suggesting it may be a promising new respiratory support therapy for BCT patients with mild-moderate ARF.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate machine learning (ML) models to predict high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure in COVID-19, compare their performance to the respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index, and evaluate model accuracy by self-reported race.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: Four Emory University Hospitals in Atlanta, GA.
METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and April 2022 who received HFNC therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission were included.
METHODS: None.
RESULTS: Four types of supervised ML models were developed for predicting HFNC failure (defined as intubation or death within 7 d of HFNC initiation), using routine clinical variables from the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Models were trained on the first 60% (n = 594) of admissions and validated on the latter 40% (n = 390) of admissions to simulate prospective implementation. Among 984 patients included, 317 patients (32.2%) developed HFNC failure. eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) model had the highest area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting HFNC failure (0.707), and was the only model with significantly better performance than the ROX index (AUROC 0.616). XGB model had significantly worse performance in Black patients compared with White patients (AUROC 0.663 vs. 0.808, p = 0.02). Racial differences in the XGB model were reduced and no longer statistically significant when restricted to patients with nonmissing arterial blood gas data, and when XGB model was developed to predict mortality (rather than the composite outcome of failure, which could be influenced by biased clinical decisions for intubation).
CONCLUSIONS: Our XGB model had better discrimination for predicting HFNC failure in COVID-19 than the ROX index, but had racial differences in accuracy of predictions. Further studies are needed to understand and mitigate potential sources of biases in clinical ML models and to improve their equitability.

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has been increasing in the emergency department (ED). However, studies are lacking on the prediction of HFNC failure before therapy initiation in the ED. We investigated whether the existing indices, such as the ratio of pulse oximetry oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate (ROX) and ratio of ROX index to heart rate (ROX-HR), can accurately predict HFNC failure at the conventional oxygen therapy phase in the ED.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included patients treated with HFNC in the ED. The ROX and ROX-HR indices were calculated before initiating HFNC. An estimated fraction of inspired oxygen was used for conventional oxygen therapy. We plotted each index\'s receiver operating characteristics curve and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnostic capacity. The optimal cutoff values were assessed using the Youden index. The primary outcome was HFNC failure, defined as intubation in the ED.
RESULTS: Among the 97 included patients, 25 (25.8%) failed HFNC therapy in the ED. The ROX and ROX-HR indices measured before initiating HFNC showed AUCs of 0.709 and 0.754, respectively. A ROX index of <5.614 and a ROX-HR index of <6.152 were associated with a high risk of intubation, even after correcting for confounding variables.
CONCLUSIONS: The ROX and ROX-HR indices measured before initiating HFNC provide a relatively fair predictive value of HFNC failure in the ED.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is widely employed as the initial treatment for patients with chronic acute exacerbation of obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Nevertheless, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been increasingly utilized and investigated to mitigate the issues associated with NIV. Flow rate may play a significant role in diaphragmatic function among subjects recovering from AECOPD. Based on these observations, we conducted a physiological study to assess the impact of HFNC therapy on diaphragmatic function, as measured by US, respiratory rate (RR), gas exchange, and patient comfort at various flow rates.
METHODS: A prospective physiological pilot study enrolled subjects with a diagnosis of AECOPD who required NIV for more than 24 h. After stabilization, these subjects underwent a 30-min trial using NIV and HFNC at different sequential flow rates (30-60 L/min). At the end of each trial, diaphragmatic displacement (DD, cm) and diaphragmatic thickness fraction (DTF, %) were measured using ultrasound. Additionally, other physiological variables, such as RR, gas exchange, and patient comfort, were recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included in the study. DD was no different among trials (p = 0.753). DTF (%) was significantly lower with HFNC-30 L/min compared to HFNC-50 and 60 L/min (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were found in arterial pH and PaCO2 at discontinuation of NIV and at the end of HFNC trials (p > 0.050). During HFNC trials, RR remained unchanged without statistically significant differences (p = 0.611). However, we observed that HFNC improved comfort compared to NIV (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Interestingly, HFNC at 30 and 40 L/min showed greater comfort during trials.
CONCLUSIONS: In subjects recovering from AECOPD and receiving HFNC, flows above 40 L/min may not offer additional benefits in terms of comfort and decreased respiratory effort. HFNC could be a suitable alternative to COT during breaks off NIV.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency departments were overcrowded with critically ill patients, and many providers were confronted with ethical dilemmas in assigning respiratory support to them due to scarce resources. Quick tools for evaluating patients upon admission were necessary, as many existing scores proved inaccurate in predicting outcomes. The ROX Index (RI), a rapid and straightforward scoring system reflecting respiratory status in acute respiratory failure patients, has shown promise in predicting outcomes for COVID-19 patients. The 24 h difference in the RI accurately gauges mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) among patients with COVID-19. Methods: Study design: Prospective cohort study. A total of 204 patients were admitted to the emergency department from May to August 2020. Data were collected from the clinical records. The RI was calculated at admission and 24 h later, and the difference was used to predict the association with mortality and the need for IMV, a logistic regression model was used to adjust for age, sex, presence of comorbidities, and disease severity. Finally, the data were analyzed using ROC. Results: The difference in respiratory RI between admission and 24 h is a good predictor for death (AUC 0.92) and for mechanic ventilation (AUC: 0.75). Each one-unit decrease in the RI difference at 24 h was associated with an odds ratio of 1.48 for the risk of death (95%CI: 1.31-1.67) and an odds ratio of 1.16 for IMV (95% IC: 1.1-1.23). Conclusions: The 24 h variation of RI is a good prediction tool to allow healthcare professionals to identify the patients who will benefit from invasive treatment, especially in low-resource settings.

BACKGROUND: The flow reaching the vocal folds may be lower than that at the output of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) system. This could be due to upper-respiratory obstruction, oxygen leakage, or other factors. The objective of this study was to observe the effect of flow through a nasopharyngeal airway on intrapharyngeal pressure (IPP) in subjects undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB).
METHODS: Patients scheduled for FOB were invited to participate. Measurements were performed at flows of 0-60 L/min; the subjects wore WN-N95 folding medical protective masks (N95) and either underwent FOB or not. IPP at each flow was recorded following 15 s of ventilation, and the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the gastric sinus was measured before and after FOB. Hypoxemia, reflux aspiration, and other pertinent events were recorded.
RESULTS: Sixty subjects undergoing FOB at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University participated in this trial from October 2022-September 2023. IPP increased significantly with an increase in flow and also increased after placing the N95 mask with the same flow (P < .001). When results from before to after FOB were compared, the difference in CSA was statistically significant 263.6 (220.7-300.5) mm2 vs 305.5 (275.4-329.5) mm2, P < .001, but the difference in the risk of reflux aspiration was not statistically significant (0% vs 6.7%, P = .13). Complication rates during treatment were 8.3% for hypoxemia, 0% for reflux aspiration, 1.7% for hypertension, 1.7% for hypotension, 6.7% for tachycardia, 5% for bradycardia, and 10% for postoperative nausea and vomiting.
CONCLUSIONS: HFNC can provide effective oxygen therapy for people undergoing FOB, and increases in IPP with flow in the range of 0-60 L/min may not increase the risk of reflux aspiration.

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for interstitial lung disease (ILD)-related respiratory failure. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC therapy in patients with ILDs. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using major electronic databases to identify relevant studies investigating the use of HFNC therapy in ILD patients with respiratory failure. Outcome measures of interest included improvements in oxygenation, dyspnea relief, respiratory rate control, hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: Twelve studies were analyzed with an overall population of 715 patients included. Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) was the most prevalent type of ILD. Evaluated clinical settings were acute (7 studies), chronic (2 studies), and end-stage (3 studies) ILDs. The HFNC as a support for acute respiratory failure seems not inferior to non-invasive ventilation while offering better comfort and patient\'s perception. Poor data are available about use in chronic/long-term or rehabilitative settings. In end of life/palliative care, an HFNC might improve quality of life. Despite the promising results, further research is warranted to establish optimal HFNC protocols, identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit, and explore long-term outcomes. Conclusions: Overall, the HFNC appears to be a valuable therapeutic option for managing respiratory failure in ILD patients, offering potential improvements in oxygenation and symptom relief.