RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of a New Interface Combining High-Flow Nasal Cannula and CPAP
JF Respiratory Care
FD American Association for Respiratory Care
SP respcare.06871
DO 10.4187/respcare.06871
A1 Eugenio Garofalo
A1 Andrea Bruni
A1 Corrado Pelaia
A1 Gianmaria Cammarota
A1 Paolo Murabito
A1 Eugenio Biamonte
A1 Karim Abdalla
A1 Federico Longhini
A1 Paolo Navalesi
YR 2019
UL http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/early/2019/06/04/respcare.06871.abstract
AB BACKGROUND: This study assessed the effects of a new interface that combined CPAP 10 cm H2O by using a helmet with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at varying flows in healthy volunteers. Outcome measures included pharyngeal pressures, diaphragm kinetics, breathing frequency, the temperature inside the helmet, and comfort.METHODS: After baseline assessment during spontaneous breathing, HFNC was applied at flows of 30, 40, and 50 L/min. Successively, the volunteers underwent helmet CPAP at 10 cm H2O and CPAP + HFNC at flows of 30, 40, and 50 L/min. We measured the variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-expiration and end-inspiration, referenced to spontaneous breathing for HFNC and to CPAP for CPAP + HFNC, diaphragm displacement and thickness at end-expiration and thickness at end-inspiration, breathing frequency, the temperature inside the helmet, the occurrence of the fog effect, and comfort.RESULTS: Variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-inspiration changes were small overall and clinically unimportant. With the mouth closed, at increasing HFNC flow, variations of pharyngeal pressures at end-expiration increased during both HFNC (from 2.8 up to 7.7) and, to a lesser extent, CPAP + HFNC (from 2.7 up to 3.8) (P < .001 for all comparisons). These variations were attenuated during open-mouth breathing. HFNC ≥ 40 L/min and CPAP + HFNC ≥ 40 L/min compared with spontaneous breathing and CPAP, respectively, increased diaphragm displacement (P = .001), thickness at end-inspiration and thickness at end-expiration (P < .003 for both). At all flows, breathing frequency was slightly, although significantly, lower with CPAP + HFNC than with HFNC alone (P < .003). The temperature inside the helmet increased slightly and insignificantly at flows of ≤ 40 L/min with CPAP + HFNC compared with CPAP alone. The fog effect never occurred, whereas comfort was always rated as optimal, without differences between trials.CONCLUSIONS: CPAP + HFNC was well tolerated, with no adverse effects. Based on our findings, there was no need to vary the CPAP level when adding HFNC. At least in healthy subjects, CPAP + HFNC at 30 L/min seemed to be the best combination.