High-Flow Nasal Cannula After Surgery–A Lateral Move From Conventional Oxygen Therapy?
========================================================================================

* Stephen W Littleton

In a study of subjects with liver transplantation published in the current issue of Respiratory Care, Gaspari et al1 assessed whether preventive use of oxygen therapy delivered by high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduced postextubation hypoxemia more effectively than did oxygen therapy delivered with an air-entrainment mask (standard O2). Twenty-nine subjects were prospectively recruited into the HFNC group. These were matched 1:1 with 29 historical controls (standard O2 group). Contrary to expectations, the incidence of hypoxemia at 1 h and 24 h after extubation was similar in both groups. In addition, ICU length of stay and 28-d mortality were similar in both groups.

The nonsuperiority of HFNC over standard oxygen therapy in postoperative subjects reported by Gaspari et al1 is in agreement with the results of similar studies, which included subjects who had undergone major abdominal surgery,2 lung resection,3 or cardiac surgery (both obese4 and normal weight) subjects.5 Based on this and previous studies, can we state that HFNC should *not* be used in postoperative patients? No. HFNC likely has some advantages and a role in the management of postoperative patients.

When compared with conventional oxygen therapy, HFNC offers a number of benefits. Among them, it reduces anatomic deadspace in a way that conventional oxygen therapy does not.6 It also decreases the work of breathing, partly through applying a small amount of PEEP (typically ∼3 cm H2O for typical flows).7 But these effects would not have much, if any, effect on the more common causes of postoperative hypoxemia, such as atelectasis, aspiration, or pneumonia.8

The equivalence in hypoxemia seen in the study by Gaspari et al,1 which was not expected, may not be surprising because of the protocols for oxygen delivery. The FIO2 in both groups of subjects was titrated to maintain an SpO2 of ≥93%. If there were a difference in hypoxemia between the groups, the difference could indicate a failure of staff to recognize hypoxemia and/or differences in the ease of use of the 2 systems, instead of superiority of one modality over the other. An unexpected finding in the current study was the trend toward lower re-intubation in the HFNC group. This finding could have reached statistical significance with an even slightly larger sample size. Based on this, should we start routinely using HFNC therapy to prevent postoperative intubation?

For a few reasons, it is premature to do so. First, the finding did not reach statistical significance. Second, the pathophysiology of postoperative respiratory failure is very heterogenous.8 Third, the risk of postoperative respiratory failure varies with the surgical procedure. For example, one study found that, after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, subjects were 11 times more likely to require prolonged mechanical ventilation; after thoracic surgery, 5.9 times more likely; and after upper abdominal surgery, 3.4 times more likely.9 Patients who have received a liver transplantation are extremely complex, and it is not clear that the findings of this study are applicable to patients who have undergone less-complex procedures. The investigators also included a subset of subjects with liver transplantation: those extubated in the ICU, not those extubated in the operating room. It is also important to note that the current study examined the *prevention* of respiratory failure not the *treatment* of respiratory failure once it develops.

The results of Gaspari et al1 also do not *discourage* the use of HFNC in postoperative patients. It is conceivable that HFNC could lead to hyperoxemia, which is increasingly recognized as harmful.10 This study did not demonstrate more hyperoxemia in the high-flow group. Postoperative respiratory failure is a very common problem, and one with a high mortality rate.11 How best to support these patients is a topic that needs larger studies, with more heterogenous patient populations.

## Footnotes

*   Correspondence: Stephen W Littleton MD, Edward Hines Junior VA Hospital, 5000 S 5th Avenue, Hines, IL.
*   See the Original Study on Page [21](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/doi/10.4187/respcare.06866)

*   Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises

## References

1.  1.Gaspari R, Spinazzola G, Ferrone G, Soave PM, Pintaudi G, Cutuli SL, et al. High-flow nasal cannula versus standard oxygen therapy after extubation in liver transplantation: a matched controlled study. Respir Care 2020;65(1):21–28.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoicmVzcGNhcmUiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiNjUvMS8yMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvcmVzcGNhcmUvNjUvMS8xMzEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2.Futier E, Paugam-Burtz C, Godet T, Khoy-Ear L, Rozencwajg S, Delay JM, et al; OPERA study investigators. Effect of early postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on hypoxaemia in patients after major abdominal surgery: a French multicentre randomised controlled trial (OPERA). Intensive Care Med 2016;42(12):1888–1898.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-016-4594-y&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27771739&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F1%2F131.atom) 

3.  3.Pennisi MA, Bello G, Congedo MT, Montini L, Nachira D, Ferretti GM, et al. Early nasal high-flow versus Venturi mask oxygen therapy after lung resection: a randomized trial. Crit Care 2019;23(1):68.
    
    

4.  4.Corley A, Bull T, Spooner AJ, Barnett AG, Fraser JF. Direct extubation onto high-flow nasal cannulae post-cardiac surgery versus standard treatment in patients with a BMI ≥30: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2015;41(5):887–894.
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25851385&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F1%2F131.atom) 

5.  5.Parke R, McGuinness S, Dixon R, Jull A. Open-label, phase II study of routine high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth 2013;111(6):925–931.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bja/aet262&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23921199&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F1%2F131.atom) 

6.  6.Papazian L, Corley A, Hess D, Fraser JF, Frat JP, Guitton C, et al. Use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation in ICU adults: a narrative review. Intensive Care Med 2016;42(9):1336–1349.
    
    

7.  7.Mauri T, Alban L, Turrini C, Cambiaghi B, Carlesso E, Taccone P, et al. Optimum support by high-flow nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: effects of increasing flow rates. Intensive Care Med 2017;43(10):1453–1463.
    
    

8.  8.1.  Tobin MJ
    
    Laghi F, Tobin MJ. Indications for mechanical ventilation. in: Tobin MJ, editor. Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2013. p. 101–135
    
    

9.  9.Arozullah AM, Daley J, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Multifactorial risk index for predicting postoperative respiratory failure in men after major noncardiac surgery. The National Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 2000;232(2):242–253.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00000658-200008000-00015&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10903604&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F1%2F131.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000088457100015&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.Lellouche F, L'Her E. Hyperoxemia: The poison is in the dose. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019 doi: 10.1164/rccm.201910-1898LE. [Epub ahead of print]
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/rccm.201910-1898LE&link_type=DOI) 

11. 11.Brueckmann B, Villa-Uribe JL, Bateman BT, Grosse-Sundrup M, Hess DR, Schlett CL, Eikermann M. Development and validation of a score for prediction of postoperative respiratory complications. Anesthesiology 2013;118(6):1276–1285.
    
    [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/ALN.0b013e318293065c&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23571640&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F1%2F131.atom)