Next Article in Journal
Obesity, Inflammation, Growth, and Metabolism: Evolution of Understanding and Evolving Functions of Old and New Peptides
Next Article in Special Issue
A Real-Life Study of Combined Treatment with Long-Term Non-Invasive Ventilation and High Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with End-Stage Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infection and Neurocognitive Impairment in Subjects with Mild Liver Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure: Past, Present, and Future
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm12123911
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients

by
Asem Alnajada
1,2,
Bronagh Blackwood
1,
Ben Messer
3,
Ivan Pavlov
4 and
Murali Shyamsundar
1,5,*
1
Wellcome Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
2
Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz College for Emergency Medical Services, King Saud University, Riyadh 11362, Saudi Arabia
3
The North East Assisted Ventilation Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle NE14LP, UK
4
Department of Emergency Medicine, Hôpital de Verdun, Montréal, QC H4G 2A3, Canada
5
Regional Intensive Care, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(12), 3911; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123911
Submission received: 18 May 2023 / Revised: 4 June 2023 / Accepted: 5 June 2023 / Published: 8 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue High Flow Nasal Cannula in Acute and Chronic Settings: Trends of Use and Outcomes)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has shown several benefits in addressing respiratory failure. However, the quality of evidence and the guidance for safe practice are lacking. This survey aimed to understand HFNT practice and the needs of the clinical community to support safe practice. (2) Method: A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to relevant healthcare professionals through national networks in the UK, USA and Canada; responses were collected between October 2020 and April 2021. (3) Results: In the UK and Canada, HFNT was used in 95% of hospitals, with the highest use being in the emergency department. HNFT was widely used outside of a critical care setting. HFNT was mostly used to treat acute type 1 respiratory failure (98%), followed by acute type 2 respiratory failure and chronic respiratory failure. Guideline development was felt to be important (96%) and urgent (81%). Auditing of practice was lacking in 71% of hospitals. In the USA, HFNT was broadly similar to UK and Canadian practice. (4) Conclusions: The survey results reveal several key points: (a) HFNT is used in clinical conditions with limited evidence; (b) there is a lack of auditing; (c) it is used in wards that may not have the appropriate skill mix; and (d) there is a lack of guidance for HFNT use.

1. Introduction

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNT) delivers a constant and precisely controlled blend of heated and humidified oxygen-air at flow rates of up to 60 L/min [1]. The putative benefits of HFNT are wide-ranging and apply to patients with both type 1 and type 2 respiratory failure. First, HFNT delivers a constant fraction of inspired oxygen with a high flow rate, matching the high inspiratory flow of patients with respiratory distress, which can reach up to 100 L/min [2]. Second, HFNT reduces anatomical dead space [3] by washing out expired air in the dead space. HFNT reduces rebreathing of carbon dioxide (CO2), which enhances ventilation and reduces partial pressures of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) and the work of breathing [4,5]. Finally, the provision of warm, humidified gas helps to avoid the drying up of secretions and preserves ciliary function that facilitates mucous clearance. There is some evidence that suggests HFNT improves comfort and is better tolerated than non-invasive ventilation (NIV) [6]. There are also fewer side effects, such as nasal and throat dryness and/or pain, associated with HFNT. This results in fewer episodes of dislodgement of the interface, increased therapy compliance and patient desaturation [1].
HFNT has been increasingly used in the current practice, especially for respiratory failure. Type 1 respiratory failure and type 2 respiratory failure can be managed by drug optimisation and by the delivery of oxygen through a nasal cannula or facemask [7,8]. Additional ventilatory support, such as NIV or invasive ventilation, is often required in case of further deterioration [8,9]. In acute type 1 respiratory failure (AT1RF), HFNT, as compared to NIV, may reduce intubation, mortality and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patients’ comfort, although the level of evidence is low [10]. Frat et al. [5] demonstrated that HFNT significantly reduced mortality rates in AT1RF at 90 days compared with NIV and conventional oxygen therapy (COT). The same study demonstrated that HFNT significantly reduced intubation rates in comparison to NIV and COT [5]. The above findings were supported by a systematic review investigating the role of HFNT in the intensive care unit (ICU), where HFNT is associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia and improved oxygenation [11]. However, in this systematic review, there was no difference in intubation and ICU length of stay. A recent systematic review comparing HFNT with COT for COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure demonstrated that HFNT significantly reduced intubation rates and mortality in the ICU compared to COT [12]. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) that included 604 patients and was conducted in three ICUs comparing HFNT with NIV for ICU patients with a high risk of reintubation showed non-inferiority of HFNT in preventing reintubation and post-extubation respiratory failure [13]. Another RCT conducted on 830 patients who underwent cardiothoracic surgery with a high risk of respiratory failure post-extubation showed non-inferiority of HFNT in treatment failure and ICU mortality when compared to NIV [14].
In patients with a high risk of reintubation, NIV is recommended to prevent reintubation, but studies have shown that NIV is associated with intolerance and discomfort [13,14,15], while HFNT is better tolerated [15]. After 12 h post-extubation, HFNT has been shown to reduce post-extubation respiratory failure and reintubation rates when compared to low-flow oxygen [13].
Currently, NIV is recommended for acute type 2 respiratory failure (AT2RF), and studies have shown that NIV can prevent intubation, reduce hospital and ICU stays and reduce mortality [9,16,17]. However, NIV has shown a high failure rate of up to 40–60%, which could lead to a delay in the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. There has been an increase in the use of HFNT for AT2RF [1]. Various observational studies have demonstrated that HFNT is beneficial in AT2RF, including improving gas exchange, acidosis, respiratory rate and work of breathing [18,19]. Small RCTs have demonstrated that HFNT is comparable to NIV in improving respiratory parameters (PaCO2, partial pressure of oxygen and pH) and patient-centred outcomes (incubation rate, mortality, length of hospital stay and patient comfort); this suggests non-inferiority of HFNT when compared to NIV [20,21,22,23]. A non-inferiority RCT conducted by Cortegiani et al. [24] compared HFNT to NIV as an initial respiratory support strategy for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) to investigate CO2 clearance after 2 h of treatment. The study showed a statistical non-inferiority of HFNT when compared to NIV in clearing CO2 after 2 h of treatment [24]. There are still no large multicentre clinical trials powered to detect clinical outcomes comparing HFNT with NIV.
In light of the potential benefits of HFNT as a new oxygen delivery method, its use is constantly expanding to address a variety of indications. While there are some guidelines that address the use of HFNT, these guidelines are not comprehensive [25,26]. It is imperative that we understand the current practice so that we may safely incorporate new technologies such as HFNT into routine practice. Despite the lack of solid evidence and scarcity of guidelines, the scope of HFNT use in clinical practice has been steadily expanding, and there is an urgent need to map current practice patterns to identify the need for future trials and guidelines. We designed a survey to understand current practices: the indications, the sites of use, the availability of local guidance, the availability of regular audits and the perceived need for better evidence or national guidelines.

2. Materials and Methods

An anonymous online survey was developed and prepared in Survey Monkey (Survey Monkey Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA). Respiratory therapists (RTs), respiratory physicians and emergency physicians were targeted as survey respondents due to their familiarity with acute respiratory failure patients across multiple locations and departments.
In the UK, the survey was distributed through the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care and the British Thoracic Society (BTS). In Canada, the survey was distributed through the Association of Emergency Medicine Specialists of Quebec, the Professional Order of Respiratory Therapists and the Quebec Association of Emergency Physicians. Furthermore, respiratory therapists responsible for device acquisition in each Canadian hospital were contacted through a list maintained by the Canadian division of Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., who had no involvement in the design of the survey, data collection, data analysis or manuscript preparation. Finally, the survey was also distributed in the USA through the American College of Emergency Medicine Physicians Research Group and the American Association of Respiratory Therapists. The survey responses were collected between October 2020 and April 2021. To encourage survey participation and maximise response rate, reminders were circulated at regular intervals via email or Twitter until the surveys closed.
In the UK, we defined the institution denominator as the number of institutions listed within the British Thoracic Society (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, n = 241). In Canada, the denominator was the number of institutions equipped with HFNT (n = 448). No denominator was available for institutions in the USA, and these data are presented separately. The UK version of the survey is provided in Appendix A.

3. Results

3.1. The UK and Canada Survey Results

There were 350 responses from the UK (165) and Canada (185). A total of 140 respondents did not provide their hospital affiliation, and the remaining respondents represented 25% (59/241) of UK and 24% (108/448) of Canadian hospitals. In the survey, the majority of respondents were RTs and physiotherapists (173/332; 52%), followed by consultants (112/332; 34%). Responses indicated that HFNT was used in 95% (333/350) of hospitals, with 31% (103/333) stating it was used in all wards. The most common areas were the Emergency Department (215/333; 65%), respiratory units (203/333; 61%) and medical units (185/333; 55%, Figure 1). Most clinicians used HFNT to treat AT1RF (327/333; 98%) followed by AT2RF (134/333; 40%) and in community chronic respiratory failure (CRF) (83/333; 25%, Figure 2). Community use of HFNT was significantly more prevalent in Canada (62/172; 36%) than in the UK (21/161; 13%, Table 1). Less than half of the respondents’ hospitals do not provide guidance on the usage of HFNT for AT1RF (135/328; 41%), while more than half of hospitals provide no guidance on HFNT usage for AT2RF (135/223; 61%, Figure 3) and with 79% (127/160) of hospitals provide no guidance on HFNT usage for CRF (Figure 3). The answers showed that the guidance provided by some hospitals mostly focused on when (102/333; 31%) and where (91/333; 27%) to start HFNT (Table 1).
HFNT indications are not regularly audited by hospitals, according to the majority of respondents (226/319; 71%). Additionally, 96% (310/324) of respondents considered the need for an HFNT guideline to be highly important, and 81% (208/258) believe that guidelines should be developed urgently (Table 1).

3.2. The USA Survey Results

The USA survey had 138 respondents, of which 70% (97/135) were respiratory therapists (Table 1). HFNT was used in 96% (133/138) of the respondents’ hospitals, with the highest use being in the emergency department (82%; 109/133, Table 1). HFNT was used for AT1RF (133/133; 100%), followed by AT2RF (64/133; 48%) and in the community (25/133; 19%, Table 1). Less than half of hospitals provide no guidance on the usage of HFNT for AT1RF (43/133; 32%), while more than half of hospitals provide no guidance on HFNT usage for AT2RF (37/87; 43%), and 47% (24/51) of hospitals do not provide guidance on HFNT usage for CRF (Table 1). Unlike the UK and Canada, the answers showed that the guidance focused on how to adjust FiO2 (65/133; 49%) and flow rate (68/133; 51%, Table 1). Broadly, in similar proportions to the UK/Canadian survey, the practice was poorly audited (79/131; 60%, Table 1). Additionally, 71% (92/131) of respondents considered the need for an HFNT guideline to be highly important, and 64% (55/86) believe guidelines should be developed urgently (Table 1). In the UK, 70% (91/130) of respondents indicated that they would be willing to participate in future HFNT RCTs (Table 1).

4. Discussion

This survey is the first of its kind to understand HFNT use and management in granular detail. It confirmed the widespread use of HFNT in different wards that are not the usual areas for respiratory support, such as surgical, orthopaedic and community settings. Further, it also identified the use of HFNT in clinical conditions where the quality of evidence is low such as AT2RF and in the community.
Patients treated acutely with HFNT have significant mortality rates (11–17%) [27], and yet there is no mandated nursing ratio and no guidance for the location of care, unlike delivery of NIV. Lower nurse staffing and higher nurse workloads are related to adverse patient outcomes such as mortality, infections and longer hospital stay [5] and may compromise care provided to patients supported with HFNT outside of specialised units. There is a lack of practical HFNT guidelines from medical societies. The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine has produced a practice guideline with a focus on hypoxaemic respiratory failure, peri-intubation, post-extubation and peri-operative care [26]. The guideline does not provide any recommendation on staffing ratio, monitoring, escalation or de-escalation guidance. The BTS guideline for oxygen use in adults and emergency settings mentions HFNT briefly as an option for patients with AT1RF without any additional guidance [28].
In our survey, a significant proportion of hospitals deliver HFNT in hospital wards that may not be suited to manage these patients. Close monitoring of these patients to identify deterioration is paramount, as delayed intubation may result in increased mortality [29]. Incorporating HFNT in early warning scores would enable the identification of high-risk patients. Delayed HFNT weaning can be associated with an unnecessary increase in hospital stays with ramifications on healthcare-associated costs, as shown in the paediatric population [30]. The lack of a governance structure relating to HFNT contrasts with that of NIV, which has a better evidence base and is subject to national audits and quality standards [31].
The survey highlighted the use of HFNT for clinical conditions where the quality of evidence is poor, such as AT2RF [4], which may not be cost-effective, if not harmful for some patients by delaying NIV or intubation. Moreover, this increased uptake of HNFT increases the difficulty of generating high-quality randomised evidence comparing HFNT to other oxygenation modalities. There is an urgent need for HFNT-specific guidelines that focus on safe delivery, identification of therapy response and clinical situations beyond AT1RF. The guidelines should identify key research gaps to guide research priorities.
Clinical auditing is key to improving the quality of patient care collaboratively and systematically. This survey has demonstrated the lack of this key patient safety measure in HFNT practice.
The strengths of this survey are the completion of the survey by clinicians from three countries, with representation from more than a quarter of UK and Canadian hospitals, which suggests the generalisability and validity of the survey despite the relatively low number of individual responses. Similar responses to the survey in the UK and North America demonstrate that the issues surrounding HFNT delivery are widespread. The main limitation of the survey is the low number of individual responses and uncertainty of the number of units.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, HFNT is utilised in multiple areas in the hospital for clinical conditions where the evidence is poor or lacking, and its practice is not widely audited. The development of practical guidelines was felt to be important and urgent by over 80% of respondents. Most respondents felt that there is a need for further trials of HFNT in common causes of respiratory failure.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S. and A.A.; methodology, M.S. and A.A.; software, M.S.; validation, M.S.; formal analysis, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; investigation, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; resources, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; data curation, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; visualization, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; supervision, M.S., B.M. and I.P.; project administration, A.A., B.B., B.M., I.P. and M.S.; funding acquisition, A.A.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

A.A. conducted this work as part of a research fellowship funded by King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. Funding number: 0.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Complete data are available in Table 1.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following societies for their assistance in distributing the survey used in this research manuscript: the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care and the British Thoracic Society (BTS) in the UK; the Association of Emergency Medicine Specialists of Quebec, the professional order of respiratory therapists, the Quebec Association of Emergency Physicians and the Canadian division of Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd.; American College of Emergency Medicine Physicians Research Group, and the American Association of Respiratory Therapists in the USA.

Conflicts of Interest

I.P. received a research grant, speaker fees and reimbursmenet of travel expenses from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. And unrestricted research grant from Open AI Inc. that are unrelated to this work. B.M. received speaker fees from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. that is unrelated to this work. M.S. received conference support from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., which is unrelated to this work.

Appendix A

Survey of High Flow Nasal Oxygen use in the UK
  • Dear respondent,
Many thanks for taking the time to respond to this survey. High flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) (e.g.: Airvo, Optiflow) use has increased dramatically in the last 5 years. There is currently no UK wide data regarding the various indications, location of use and compliance with current evidence. There is also a distinct lack of guidelines from a thoracic society. Anecdotally the practice is also variable which when considered along with the lack of guidelines may fail to maximise patient benefit and lead to harm. This survey is the first step to understanding the current practice as well as for the respiratory/ICM community to voice their opinion.
The average time to complete the questionnaire is 5 min.
The survey spans patients in different wards and so you may need to speak to a colleague in a different specialty if you are unsure of an answer.
We thank you again for your contribution to this survey.
DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT
The information you supply on this form will be held on file and on a database held on the BTS central server and accessible to BTS employees on their desktop computers. Information provided will be anonymised prior to analysis and may then be presented as a report to BTS Committees, BTS members and may be published on the BTS website. In addition, the data may be used for purposes such as supporting information for service development, support of guideline development and dissemination of the survey findings. The survey does not collect personal identifiable data. If a local SOP or guidance is forwarded to the team in Q8 (optional response in the questionnaire) or email address is provided in Q17 (optional response in the questionnaire), the personal identifiable data will never be shared or disseminated. The survey will also comply with the BTS data protection policy as stated above.
  • Q1. Is HFNO used in any ward (excluding theatres, post-anaesthetic care unit, ICU, HDU) in your hospital?
  • Yes
  • No
  • If you have answered “No”, please do not proceed.
  •  
  • Q2. Are you a member of the following organisations? (tick all that apply)
  • British Thoracic Society
  • ACPRC
  • Neither
  • If you have marked “neither” you should not mark the other choices.
  •  
  • Q3. State the professional group you belong to:
  • Consultant
  • Trainee
  • Physiotherapist
  • Nurse
  • If Consultant, please state specialty and if trainee, please state specialty and grade (FY1, FY2, CMT, SAS, ST, Locum)
  •  
  • ___________________________________
  •  
  • Q4. Which locations in your hospital use HFNO (tick all that apply)?
  • Emergency Department (including short stay unit)
  • Medical Admissions Unit
  • Respiratory Ward
  • Cardiac ward
  • Surgery (any)
  • Orthopaedics
  • Community
  • All the wards
  • Any other ward (please specify excluding theatres, post—anaesthetic recovery, ICU, HDU)
  • _____________________________
  •  
  • Q5. Have you seen or are you aware of HFNO being used for the following condition(s) (tick all that apply):
  • Treatment of acute hypoxic respiratory failure
  • Treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure
  • In the community for chronic respiratory disorders
  •  
  • If in community, please state all the conditions where HFNO is being used: ___________________________________________________________________________
  •  
  • Q6. If you have ticked “yes” for “Treatment of acute hypoxic respiratory failure” in Q5, does your hospital/trust provide guidance/SOP on the use of HFNO for this specific indication?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure
  •  
  • Q7. If you have ticked “yes” for “Treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure” in Q5, does your hospital/trust provide guidance/SOP on the use of HFNO for this specific indication?
  •  
  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure
  •  
  • Q8. If you have ticked “yes” for “In the community for chronic respiratory disorders” in Q5, does your hospital/trust provide guidance/SOP on the use of HFNO for this specific indication?
  •  
  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure
  •  
  • Q9. If you have marked “yes” for any of questions Q6–Q8, does the guidance/SOP have the following components? If you have marked “no” or “unsure” to Q6–Q8, skip this question.
  •  
  • When to start HFNO?
  • Where to start HFNO?
  • Is HFNO used to classify the level of patient care (e.g.: Level 2, 3 etc.)
  • Does it provide guidance on nursing ratio?
  • Does it provide guidance on achieving training competency?
  • How to monitor patients on HFNO?
  • How to adjust FiO2?
  • How to adjust flow rate?
  • How to wean off HFNO?
  • Is there an escalation policy?
  •  
  • Please send a copy of the guidance to murali.shyamsundar@qub.ac.uk (optional)
  •  
  • Q10. If you have marked “yes” for “Treatment of acute hypoxic respiratory failure” in Q5, what were the clinical aetiologies that you have seen or aware of HFNO being used for? (mark all that apply)
  •  
  • Acute bronchial asthma
  • Bronchiectasis
  • COPD
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Interstitial lung disease
  • Neurological conditions (e.g.: Gullian Barre Syndrome)
  • Pneumonia (CAP/HCAI)
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Pulmonary oedema
  • Obstructive sleep apnoea (without hypercapnoea)
  • Q11. If you have marked “yes” for “Treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure” in Q5, what were the clinical aetiologies that you have seen or aware of HFNO being used for? (mark all that apply)
  •  
  • Acute exacerbation of COPD
  • Neurological conditions (e.g.: myasthenia gravis)
  • Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome
  • Drug overdose
  • Cystic fibrosis
  • Bronchiectasis
  •  
  • Q12. Does your hospital conduct regular audit on the use of HFNO for any indication?
  •  
  • Yes
  • No
  •  
  • Q13. Which hospital do you work in? (optional question)
  •  
  • Q14. In your opinion, how important is the need for an official guideline for the management of patients using HFNO?
  • Very important
  • Important
  • Not important
  •  
  • Q15. If you have marked “very important” or “important” for Q14, how urgent is the need for guideline?
  • Urgent
  • Not urgent
  •  
  • Q16. In your opinion, is there a need for a trial of HFNO in the following conditions that are relevant to respiratory community and with a high disease burden? (please tick all that apply):
  •  
  • Type 1 respiratory failure due to community acquired pneumonia
  • Type 1 respiratory failure due to hospital acquired pneumonia
  • Acute severe asthma
  • Acute exacerbation of COPD
  • Other (excluding post-anaesthetic and post extubation): please specify _________________
  •  
  • Q17. If you have agreed with the need for a clinical trial for any of the above, will your unit be interested in taking part in the clinical trial?
  •  
  • Yes
  • No
  •  
  • Q18. Please provide your email address if you are interested in a future trial/point prevalence survey of HFNO (your contact details will not be disseminated or shared beyond this stated indication) (optional response): _____________________________________

References

  1. Ashraf-Kashani, N.; Kumar, R. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy. BJA Educ. 2017, 17, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ritchie, J.E.; Williams, A.B.; Gerard, C.; Hockey, H. Evaluation of a humidified nasal high-flow oxygen system, using oxygraphy, capnography and measurement of upper airway pressures. Anaesth. Intensive Care 2011, 39, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Möller, W.; Feng, S.; Domanski, U.; Franke, K.J.; Celik, G.; Bartenstein, P.; Becker, S.; Meyer, G.; Schmid, O.; Eickelberg, O.; et al. Nasal high flow reduces dead space. J. Appl. Physiol. 2017, 122, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Alnajada, A.A.; Blackwood, B.; Mobrad, A.; Akhtar, A.; Pavlov, I.; Shyamsundar, M. High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: A systematic review. F1000Research 2021, 10, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Frat, J.P.; Thille, A.W.; Mercat, A.; Girault, C.; Ragot, S.; Perbet, S.; Prat, G.; Boulain, T.; Morawiec, E.; Cottereau, A.; et al. REVA Network. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 2185–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Waugh, J.B.; Granger, W.M. An evaluation of 2 new devices for nasal high-flow gas therapy. Respir. Care 2004, 49, 902–906. [Google Scholar]
  7. Davidson, A.C.; Banham, S.; Elliott, M.; Kennedy, D.; Gelder, C.; Glossop, A.; Church, A.C.; Creagh-Brown, B.; Dodd, J.W.; Felton, T.; et al. BTS Standards of Care Committee Member, British Thoracic Society/Intensive Care Society Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure Guideline Development Group, On behalf of the British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee. BTS/ICS guideline for the ventilatory management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults. Thorax 2016, 71, ii1–ii35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Shebl, E.; Mirabile, V.S.; Sankari, A.; Burns, B. Respiratory Failure. In StatPearls [Internet]; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nava, S.; Navalesi, P.; Conti, G. Time of non-invasive ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baldomero, A.K.; Melzer, A.C.; Greer, N.; Majeski, B.N.; MacDonald, R.; Linskens, E.J.; Wilt, T.J. Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann. Intern. Med. 2021, 174, 952–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liang, S.; Liu, Z.; Qin, Y.; Wu, Y. The effect of high flow nasal oxygen therapy in intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 2021, 15, 1335–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, Y.; Li, C.; Chang, W.; Liu, L. High-flow nasal cannula reduces intubation rate in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure: A meta-analysis and systematic review. BMJ Open 2023, 13, e067879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hernández, G.; Vaquero, C.; Colinas, L.; Cuena, R.; González, P.; Canabal, A.; Sanchez, S.; Rodriguez, M.L.; Villasclaras, A.; Fernández, R. Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Noninvasive Ventilation on Reintubation and Postextubation Respiratory Failure in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2016, 316, 1565–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Stéphan, F.; Barrucand, B.; Petit, P.; Rézaiguia-Delclaux, S.; Médard, A.; Delannoy, B.; Cosserant, B.; Flicoteaux, G.; Imbert, A.; Pilorge, C.; et al. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Positive Airway Pressure in Hypoxemic Patients After Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015, 313, 2331–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Rochwerg, B.; Brochard, L.; Elliott, M.W.; Hess, D.; Hill, N.S.; Nava, S.; Navalesi, P.; Antonelli, M.; Brozek, J.; Conti, G.; et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: Noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur. Respir. J. 2017, 50, 1602426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Frat, J.P.; Coudroy, R.; Marjanovic, N.; Thille, A.W. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Ann. Transl. Med. 2017, 5, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Osadnik, C.R.; Tee, V.S.; Carson-Chahhoud, K.V.; Picot, J.; Wedzicha, J.A.; Smith, B.J. Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 7, CD004104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Bräunlich, J.; Wirtz, H. Nasal high-flow in acute hypercapnic exacerbation of COPD. Int. J. Chronic Obstr. Pulm. Dis. 2018, 13, 3895–3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Yuste, M.E.; Moreno, O.; Narbona, S.; Acosta, F.; Peñas, L.; Colmenero, M. Efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in moderate acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiv. 2019, 31, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, M.K.; Choi, J.; Park, B.; Kim, B.; Lee, S.J.; Kim, S.H.; Yong, S.J.; Choi, E.H.; Lee, W.Y. High flow nasal cannulae oxygen therapy in acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure. Clin. Respir. J. 2018, 12, 2046–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pilcher, J.; Eastlake, L.; Richards, M.; Power, S.; Cripps, T.; Bibby, S.; Braithwaite, I.; Weatherall, M.; Beasley, R. Physiological effects of titrated oxygen via nasal high-flow cannulae in COPD exacerbations: A randomized controlled cross-over trial. Respirology 2017, 22, 1149–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cong, L.; Zhou, L.; Liu, H.; Wang, J. Outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2019, 12, 10863–10867. [Google Scholar]
  23. Doshi, P.B.; Whittle, J.S.; Dungan, G., 2nd; Volakis, L.I.; Bublewicz, M.; Kearney, J.; Miller, T.L.; Dodge, D.; Harsch, M.R.; DeBellis, R.; et al. The ventilatory effect of high velocity nasal insufflation compared to non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation in the treatment of hypercapneic respiratory failure: A subgroup analysis. Heart Lung 2020, 49, 610–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cortegiani, A.; Longhini, F.; Madotto, F.; Groff, P.; Scala, R.; Crimi, C.; Carlucci, A.; Bruni, A.; Garofalo, E.; Raineri, S.M.; et al. High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation as initial ventilatory strategy in COPD exacerbation: A multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Oczkowski, S.; Ergan, B.; Bos, L.; Chatwin, M.; Ferrer, M.; Gregoretti, C.; Heunks, L.; Frat, J.P.; Longhini, F.; Nava, S.; et al. ERS clinical practice guidelines: High-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur. Respir. J. 2022, 59, 2101574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Rochwerg, B.; Einav, S.; Chaudhuri, D.; Mancebo, J.; Mauri, T.; Helviz, Y.; Goligher, E.C.; Jaber, S.; Ricard, J.D.; Rittayamai, N.; et al. The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: A clinical practice guideline. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 2226–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Needleman, J. Nursing skill mix and patient outcomes. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2017, 26, 525–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. O’Driscoll, B.R.; Howard, L.S.; Earis, J.; Mak, V. British Thoracic Society Emergency Oxygen Guideline Group; BTS Emergency Oxygen Guideline Development Group. BTS guideline for oxygen use in adults in healthcare and emergency settings. Thorax 2017, 72, ii1–ii90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kang, B.J.; Koh, Y.; Lim, C.M.; Huh, J.W.; Baek, S.; Han, M.; Seo, H.S.; Suh, H.J.; Seo, G.J.; Kim, E.Y.; et al. Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality. Intensive Care Med. 2015, 41, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Charvat, C.; Jain, S.; Orenstein, E.W.; Miller, L.; Edmond, M.; Sanders, R. Quality Initiative to Reduce High-Flow Nasal Cannula Duration and Length of Stay in Bronchiolitis. Hosp. Pediatr. 2021, 11, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Davies, M.; Allen, M.; Bentley, A.; Bourke, S.C.; Creagh-Brown, B.; D’Oliveiro, R.; Glossop, A.; Gray, A.; Jacobs, P.; Mahadeva, R.; et al. British Thoracic Society Quality Standards for acute non-invasive ventilation in adults. BMJ Open Respir. Res. 2018, 5, e000283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcm 12 03911 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of high flow nasal therapy use in the UK and Canada.
Figure 1. Location of high flow nasal therapy use in the UK and Canada.
Jcm 12 03911 g001
Jcm 12 03911 g002 550
Figure 2. The most common conditions treated with HFNT in the UK and Canada. Abbreviations: AT1RF, acute type 1 respiratory failure; AT2RF, acute type 2 respiratory failure.
Figure 2. The most common conditions treated with HFNT in the UK and Canada. Abbreviations: AT1RF, acute type 1 respiratory failure; AT2RF, acute type 2 respiratory failure.
Jcm 12 03911 g002
Jcm 12 03911 g003 550
Figure 3. The lack of high flow nasal therapy guidance in the UK and Canada. Abbreviations: AT1RF, acute type 1 respiratory failure; AT2RF, acute type 2 respiratory failure.
Figure 3. The lack of high flow nasal therapy guidance in the UK and Canada. Abbreviations: AT1RF, acute type 1 respiratory failure; AT2RF, acute type 2 respiratory failure.
Jcm 12 03911 g003
Table
Table 1. Detailed survey results of all sites.
Table 1. Detailed survey results of all sites.
Survey ItemsUK
n/N (%)		USA
n/N (%)		Canada
n/N (%)
HFNT used in any wards?Yes161/165 (98%)133/138 (96%)172/185 (93%)
no4/165 (6.1%)5/138 (4%)13/185 (7%)
Respondents’ professionsConsultants66/161 (41%)36/133 (26%)46/171 (27%)
Physiotherapists/RT51/161 (32%)97/133 (73%)122/171 (71%)
Nurse16/161 (10%)0/133 (0%)2/171 (1%)
Trainee23/161 (14%)2/133 (2%)1/171 (1%)
Other5/161 (3%)0/133 (0%)0/171 (0%)
Location of useEmergency department58/161 (36%)109/133 (82%)161/175 (92%)
Medical admission unit67/161 (42%)85/133 (64%)118/175 (67%)
Respiratory ward132/161 (82%)67/133 (50%)157/172 (91%)
Cardiac ward40/161 (25%)61/133 (46%)117/172 (68%)
Surgery34/161 (21%)29/133 (22%)71/172 (41%)
Orthopaedics16/161 (10%)27/133 (20%)58/172 (34%)
Community8/161 (5%)2/133 (2%)54/172 (31%)
All the wards28/161 (17%)58/133 (44%)24/172 (14%)
Conditions treated with HFNTAT1RF159/161 (99%)133/133 (100%)168/172 (98%)
AT2RF41/161 (25%)64/133 (48%)93/172 (54%)
CRF21/161 (13%)25/133 (19%)62/172 (36%)
Guidance availability for AT1RFYes65/158 (41%)76/133 (57%)57/170 (34%)
No42/158 (27%)43/133 (32%)93/170 (53%)
Unsure51/158 (32%)14/133 (11%)23/170 (14%)
Guidance availability for AT2RFYes17/108 (16%)35/87 (40%)20/115 (17%)
No59/108 (55%)37/87 (43%)77/115 (67%)
Unsure32/108 (30%)15/87 (17%)18/115 (16%)
Guidance availability for CRFYes2/70 (2%)13/51 (25%)5/90 (6%)
No66/70 (66%)24/51 (47%)61/90 (61%)
Unsure22/70 (31%)14/51 (27%)24/90 (27%)
Components of the guidelinesWhen to start HFNT63/161 (39%)52/133 (39%)39/172 (23%)
Where to start HFNT57/161 (35%)38/133 (29%)34/172 (20%)
HFNT is used to classify the level of patient care14/161 (9%) 45/133 (34%) 23/172 (13%)
Guidance on nursing ratios12/161 (7%)9/133 (7%)10/172 (6%)
Guidance on achieving training competency24/161 (15%)30/133 (23%)8/172 (5%)
How to monitor patients on HFNT?44/161 (27%)58/133 (44%)40/172 (23%)
How to adjust FiO2?45/161 (28%)65/133 (49%)41/172 (24%)
How to adjust the flow rate?43/161 (27%)68/133 (51%)38/172 (22%)
How to wean off HFNT?40/161 (25%)57/133 (43%)35/172 (20%)
Is there an escalation policy?48/161 (30%)24/133 (18%)25/172 (15%)
Common indications for HFNT use in AT1RFAcute bronchial asthma39/161 (24%)64/133 (48%)78/172 (45%)
Bronchiectasis72/161 (45%)54/133 (41%)81/172 (45%)
COPD72/161 (45%)98/133 (74%)134/172 (76%)
Cystic fibrosis39/161 (24%)0/133 (0%)18/172 (10%)
Interstitial lung disease121/161 (73%)92/133 (69%)104/172 (60%)
Obstructive sleep apnoea (without hypercapnia)20/161 (12%)27/133 (20%)19/172 (11%)
Neurological conditions33/161 (20%)17/133 (13%)38/172 (22%)
Pneumonia135/161 (84%)112/133 (84%)150/172 (87%)
Pulmonary embolism63/161 (39%)42/133 (32%)56/172 (33%)
Pulmonary oedema74/161 (46%)79/133 (59%)85/172 (49%)
Common indications for HFNT use in AT2RFAECOPD40/161 (25%)61/133 (46%)88/172 (51%)
Bronchiectasis17/161 (11%)32/133 (24%)40/172 (23%)
Cystic fibrosis14/161 (9%)18/133 (14%)34/172 (20%)
Drug overdose13/161 (8%)7/133 (5%)23/172 (13%)
Neurological conditions18/161 (11%)12/133 (9%)21/172 (12%)
Obesity hypoventilation syndrome12/161 (7%)33/133 (25%)30/172 (17%)
Availability of HFNT regular auditYes39/147 (27%)16/131 (12%)12/176 (7%)
No108/147 (73%)79/131 (60%)118/176 (69%)
UnsureN/A36/131 (27%)42/176 (24%)
Importance of having an official guideline for HFNTVery important98/160 (61%)92/131 (71%)97/164 (59%)
Important53/160 (33%)29/131 (22%)62/164 (38%)
Not important9/160 (6%)10/131 (7%)5/164 (3%)
The urgency of having an official guideline for HFNT useUrgent115/149 (77%)76/86 (88%)93/112 (83%)
Not urgent34/151 (23%)10/86 (11%)19/112 (17%)
Need for a trial of HFNT in the following conditions:AT1RF due to community-acquired pneumonia124/161 (77%)91/133 (68%)113/172 (66%)
AT1RF due to hospital-acquired pneumonia115/161 (71%)86/133 (65%)108/172 (62%)
Acute severe asthma55/161 (34%)61/133 (46%)101/172 (59%)
AECOPD70/161 (43%)80/133 (60%)108/172 (63%)
Taking part in the clinical trial for various conditionsYes91/130 (70%)N/AN/A
No39/130 (30%)N/AN/A
Abbreviations: AARC, American Association for Respiratory Care; ACPRC, Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care; ACEMP, American College of Emergency Medicine physicians research group; AECOPD, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; AMUQ, Association des médecins d’urgence du Québec (Quebec Association of Emergency Physicians); ASMUQ, Association des spécialistes en médecine d’urgence du Québec, (Quebec Association of Emergency Medicine Specialists); AT1RF, acute type 1 respiratory failure; AT2RF, acute type 2 respiratory failure; BTS, British Thoracic Society; CRF, chronic respiratory failure; FiO2, fractional inspired oxygen; HFNT, high-flow nasal therapy; N/n, number of respondents; N/A, not applicable; OPIQ, Ordre professionnel des inhalothérapeutes du Québec (Professional order of Quebec respiratory therapists); RT, respiratory therapists; UK, United Kingdom; USA, United States of America.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alnajada, A.; Blackwood, B.; Messer, B.; Pavlov, I.; Shyamsundar, M. International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3911. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123911

AMA Style

Alnajada A, Blackwood B, Messer B, Pavlov I, Shyamsundar M. International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(12):3911. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123911

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alnajada, Asem, Bronagh Blackwood, Ben Messer, Ivan Pavlov, and Murali Shyamsundar. 2023. "International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 12: 3911. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123911

APA Style

Alnajada, A., Blackwood, B., Messer, B., Pavlov, I., & Shyamsundar, M. (2023). International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(12), 3911. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123911

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop