Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleFast Track

Risk of Aerosol Formation During High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Critically Ill Subjects

Reinout A Bem, Niels van Mourik, Rozalinde Klein-Blommert, Ingrid JB Spijkerman, Stefan Kooij, Daniel Bonn and Alexander P Vlaar
Respiratory Care June 2021, 66 (6) 891-896; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.08756
Reinout A Bem
Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Niels van Mourik
Department of Adult Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rozalinde Klein-Blommert
Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Emma Children’s Hospital, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ingrid JB Spijkerman
Department of Microbiology and Infection Prevention, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Kooij
Institute of Physics, Van der Waals-Zeeman Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Bonn
Institute of Physics, Van der Waals-Zeeman Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander P Vlaar
Department of Adult Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a persistent concern over the risk of respiratory pathogen transmission, including SARS-CoV-2, via the formation of aerosols (ie, a suspension of microdroplets and residual microparticles after evaporation) generated during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy in critically ill patients. This concern is fueled by limited available studies on this subject. In this study, we tested our hypothesis that HFNC treatment is not associated with increased aerosol formation as compared to conventional oxygen therapy.

METHODS: We used laser light scattering and a handheld particle counter to detect and quantify aerosols in healthy subjects and in adults with acute respiratory disease, including COVID-19, during HFNC or conventional oxygen therapy.

RESULTS: The use of HFNC was not associated with increased formation of aerosols as compared to conventional oxygen therapy in both healthy subjects (n = 3) and subjects with acute respiratory disease, including COVID-19 (n = 17).

CONCLUSIONS: In line with scarce previous clinical and experimental findings, our results indicate that HFNC itself does not result in overall increased aerosol formation as compared to conventional oxygen therapy. This suggests there is no increased risk of respiratory pathogen transmission to health care workers during HFNC.

  • high-flow nasal cannula
  • oxygen therapy
  • aerosol
  • respiratory virus
  • pneumonia
  • ARDS
  • COVID-19

Introduction

Health care workers are at increased risk for infectious respiratory diseases, including COVID-19, by working in close contact with infected patients. It has been well established that respiratory pathogen transmission occurs through large exhaled respiratory droplets, such as those produced during coughing. However, aerosols, consisting of a continuum of microdroplets and residual microparticles after evaporation (size < 5 µm), which have a much longer airborne time,1,2 may under specific circumstances constitute an important mode of spread of respiratory microbes and viruses.3,4 Not surprisingly, during the current global health care crisis related to COVID-19, concerns over the ability of certain respiratory medical interventions and procedures to generate aerosols carrying SARS-CoV-2 (bio-aerosols) have spiked.5-7

One of the respiratory interventions that remains a topic of active discussion in the clinical field regarding risk for bio-aerosol formation is oxygen therapy via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), a potentially beneficial respiratory support modality in critically ill patients in the ICU.6,8,9 It has been suggested that the high flow (ie, up to 60 L/min in adults) of warmed, humidified oxygen during HFNC treatment forced over respiratory mucosa generates aerosols. However, it is important to realize that expiratory flows during normal coughing or labored breathing without any respiratory support are much higher, which somewhat questions the relative importance and physiological basis for the view of HFNC as an aerosol-generating procedure.7 In fact, recent observational and experimental findings suggest that HFNC does not generate higher numbers of aerosols as compared to conventional oxygen therapy modalities.10-13 Likewise, clinical studies have not shown evidence of increased risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 from subjects receiving HFNC to health care workers,14,15 nor is there evidence of increased surface or air dispersion of viral and bacterial pathogens.13,16

Although the above data together provide reassurance for the safety of HFNC regarding pathogen transmission during the COVID-19 crisis, the sample sizes of the individual studies so far, in particular those involving actual patients with acute (infectious) respiratory disease, are small.13 This may fuel the hesitant approach or even avoidance of HFNC treatment for patients with COVID-19.6,8,17 Therefore, to gain further evidence on this subject, we aimed to test our hypothesis that HFNC treatment is not associated with increased aerosol formation as compared to conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.

QUICK LOOK

Current Knowledge

Aerosols play a role in the transmission of pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. Respiratory care therapies that generate aerosols may increase this risk to health care workers who come in close contact with infected patients. There is an ongoing debate about whether oxygen therapy via high-flow nasal cannula leads to increased risk of aerosol formation.

What This Paper Contributes to Our Knowledge

In both healthy adults and subjects with acute respiratory diseases, including COVID-19, the use of high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with increased aerosol formation as compared to conventional oxygen therapy delivered via a non-rebreather mask or low-flow nasal cannula.

Methods

This study was approved by the local medical ethical committee at the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC (2020_098/NL73585.018.20 and W20_321#20.353), which is where this study took place.

Detection of Aerosols in Healthy Subjects

We visually detected and quantified both large respiratory droplets and aerosols in 3 healthy volunteer adults, similar to our previous descriptions.1,4 Particles and droplets were detected in complete darkness with a SprayScan (Spraying Systems, Glendale Heights, Illinois) laser sheet during normal, unsupported breathing and during breathing while receiving treatment with either a non-rebreather mask (Salter Labs, Lake Forest, Illinois) at 15 L/min or HFNC (Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) at 34–37°C and 60 L/min. As a positive control, these subjects were also asked to cough to generate both large respiratory droplets and aerosols,1,4 and they received normal saline (NaCl 0.9%) nebulization through the HFNC system to generate aerosolized microparticles. Quantification (light pixels) with ImageJ software was performed as described previously.4,18 All subjects received the different treatments in crossover, and measurements were carried out after ∼ 5 min per experimental condition. The experimental lab space in which the measurements took place is a dust-free room (ie, to minimize serious background signals) that was kept at a constant temperature of 20.5 ± 0.5°C, with a measured relative humidity of 45 ± 3% and normal atmospheric pressure. Laser diffraction measurement using a spray particle/droplet measurement system with wavelength of 0.6 µm (Malvern Spraytech, Malvern, United Kingdom) was used to determine size distribution of the positive aerosolized microparticle control test using normal saline nebulization via the HFNC system.4,18

Detection of Aerosols in Patients

We prospectively included adult subjects receiving conventional oxygen therapy via a non-rebreather mask or low-flow nasal cannula and subjects receiving oxygen therapy via HFNC for various acute respiratory diseases in the ICU or the specialized COVID-19 ward. Subjects were treated inside negative pressure rooms up to –7.5 kPa. As direct visualization of aerosols with a laser sheet in the dark is not possible in these subjects, we used a particle counter (Royco HH200, PACSCI EMC, Hollister, California) to detect microparticles with diameters of 0.5 µm and 5.0 µm during 15 s of air sampling at 2 distances (30 cm and 1 m) in 4 positions around the head of the subject (left, right, rear, front) to assess for dispersion in all directions. Previously, we validated the technique of using a handheld particle counter to detect aerosol formation.18 In addition, we separately measured aerosolized microparticles generated during normal saline nebulization through a HFNC system as a positive control for detection of aerosols by the handheld particle counter.

Statistical Analysis

Data from the healthy adults are derived from 2 separate experiments per condition per subject; they are presented as means ± SEM and were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance with a post hoc least significant differences test. Data from measurements in the subjects are presented as proportions and medians (interquartile range) and analyzed with the Fisher exact test or Mann-Whitney U test. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Data analysis was performed with SPSS 26 (IBM, Armonk, New York).

Results

First, to have a more general estimation of the ability of HFNC to generate aerosols, we visualized and quantified particles/droplets generated by healthy adults breathing either unsupported or while receiving oxygen through a non-rebreather mask or HFNC. To have the highest chance to detect particle emission, we compared these conditions while subjects were breathing with their mouth open. As compared to unsupported breathing or a non-rebreather mask, HFNC treatment was not associated with increased aerosol formation. Normal saline nebulization through the HFNC system to generate aerosolized microparticles as a positive control indeed resulted in much higher numbers of aerosols (Fig. 1). With laser diffraction the size of these nebulized normal saline particles was well below 10 µm, confirming the size range of aerosols (Fig. 2). Similarly, no increased HFNC-mediated aerosols during other conditions, such as closed mouth breathing, using differential flow speeds (ie, 10–60 L/min), or upon intranasal inhalation of normal saline to mimic rhinitis, were observed in a set of separate experiments (data not shown). In addition, upon visualization of aerosols detected during HFNC treatment, these numbers were negligible when we compared them to the cloud of both large respiratory droplets and aerosols generated during a normal cough of a so-called “high emitter” (Fig. 3).4 However, as the expiratory flow generated during coughing maneuvers is highly variable in both rate and direction, we did not directly compare this further.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Aerosol detection. Detected particles/droplets (quantified by maximum light pixels/mm2) during open-mouth breathing during no oxygen support (none), non-rebreathing mask (NRM, 15 L/min), HFNC (60 L/min), and HFNC with normal saline nebulization (positive control for generating aerosolized microparticles). *P = .032 by repeated measures analysis of variance with post hoc least significant difference (LSD) analysis, as compared to all other groups. Data (mean ± SEM) from 3 subjects measured twice in separate experiments. HFNC = high-flow nasal cannula.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Aerosol size range from normal saline nebulization. Microparticle size distribution detected with laser diffraction during normal saline nebulization via high-flow nasal cannula treatment (positive control for generating aerosolized microparticles).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Aerosol visualization patterns. Particle/droplet visualization with laser light scattering from a healthy adult with the face oriented sideward from the left side. A: Receiving HFNC at 60 L/min; (B) during a single cough without respiratory support; and (C) during HFNC with normal saline nebulization for positive control of visualization of aerosolized microparticles. HFNC = high-flow nasal cannula.

Second, as healthy volunteers obviously lack mucus hypersecretion associated with infectious respiratory diseases and may thus introduce a type-2 error, we measured aerosol formation in subjects receiving conventional oxygen therapy via a non-rebreather mask or low-flow nasal cannula and compared this to subjects receiving therapy via HFNC. A total of 17 subjects with acute respiratory diseases receiving either conventional oxygen or HFNC treatment admitted to the ICU (n = 13) or to a specialized COVID-19 ward (n = 4) were included in the study (Table 1). In 9 (53%) of the subjects, the underlying disease was COVID-19. As expected, subjects on HFNC received higher flows as compared to the conventional group (P = .001) (Table 1). However, both groups had similar median counts for both the 0.5 µm and the 5.0 µm aerosol sizes as sampled at distances of 30 cm and 1 m from the subject (Table 2). No differences between the number of aerosols and the level of pressure inside the rooms was found. As a positive control for the handheld particle counter, normal saline nebulization through a HFNC system results in median (interquartile range) aerosolized microparticle counts that are of several orders of magnitude greater: 224.6 × 103 (180.3–311.7 × 103) and 2.2 × 103 (1.3–6.8 × 103) for 0.5 µm and 5.0 µm particle sizes, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Subject Characteristics

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Aerosol Detection

Discussion

The main finding of this study of aerosol dynamics is that HFNC treatment itself is not associated with increased aerosol formation, as determined in both healthy subjects and critically ill subjects (n = 17) with acute respiratory disease, including COVID-19.

Our findings are in line with a very recent study among 9 subjects with COVID-19,13 as well as recent experimental observations in 10 healthy subjects.10 Importantly, our findings provide further scientific basis for studies that have failed to detect increased dispersion of bacteria or viruses, such as SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, to surrounding surfaces or air during HFNC.13,16 In contrast, Ahn et al19 detected viable SARS-CoV-2 particles in environmental swabs, though in that case-study the only subject who received HFNC was also subsequently treated with noninvasive ventilation. Recently, Vianello et al14 reported a case series of 28 patients with COVID-19 treated with HFNC. The authors reported that none of the staff (wearing FFP2 masks) working in close contact with these patients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within a 14-d period. Such studies underline prior views of the safety of HFNC during this current COVID-19 health crisis.9,12

By the combined effort of these studies, derived by different investigator groups in various patient cohorts, using a number of aerosol and pathogen detection methods, the risk of bio-aerosol generation during HFNC appears to be low. However, a clear limitation to studying aerosol dynamics in relation to the transmission of novel pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 is our current lack of understanding of virion stability and infectivity (ie, the number of virions needed to produce an active infection).4,20 It should thus be noted that aerosol detection findings in the setting of HFNC, such as in this study, without measurements of virus particles or transmission to health care workers must be cautiously interpreted.17 Nevertheless, the stark contrast between our findings of low aerosol formation during HFNC treatment and the very high numbers of both large respiratory droplets as well as aerosols that can be produced by a normal single cough or sneeze, as clearly demonstrated in various studies,2,4 at least suggests that we should do our best to protect health care workers from this type of transmission risk while they work in close contact with patients, regardless of whether they receive any form of respiratory support.

Conclusions

Our study of healthy and critically ill adult subjects, including those with COVID-19, provides additional evidence to bolster the scarce previous findings that HFNC is not associated with increased aerosol formation. Further research investigating modes and risk of pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) transmission to health care workers is urgently needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Of the Amsterdam UMC, we thank Niels W Rutjes MD (Department of Pediatric Pulmonology), as well as Dick Markhorst MD PhD and Job BM van Woensel MD PhD (Department of Pediatric Intensive Care), for a fruitful discussion on this study and implications. We thank D. Giesen (Institute of Physics, UvA) for expert technical assistance.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Reinout A Bem MD PhD, Meibergdreef 9, 1105AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: r.a.bem{at}amsterdamumc.nl
  • See the Related Editorial on Page 1039

  • Drs Bem and van Mourik are co-first authors.

  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Somsen GA,
    2. van Rijn C,
    3. Kooij S,
    4. Bem RA,
    5. Bonn D
    . Small droplet aerosols in poorly ventilated spaces and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(7):658-659.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bourouiba L
    . Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 2020;323(18):1837-1838.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fennelly KP
    . Particle sizes of infectious aerosols: implications for infection control. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(9):914-924.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Smith SH,
    2. Somsen GA,
    3. van Rijn C,
    4. Kooij S,
    5. van der Hoek CM,
    6. Bem RA,
    7. Bonn D
    . Aerosol persistence in relation to possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Phys Fluids (1994) 2020;32(10):107108.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ari A
    . Use of aerosolised medications at home for COVID-19. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(8):754-756.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Phua J,
    2. Weng L,
    3. Ling L,
    4. Egi M,
    5. Lim CM,
    6. Divatia JV,
    7. et al
    . Intensive care management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): challenges and recommendations. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(5):506-517.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Klompas M,
    2. Baker M,
    3. Rhee C
    . What is an aerosol-generating procedure? JAMA Surg 2021;156(2):113.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cheung JC,
    2. Ho LT,
    3. Cheng JV,
    4. Cham EYK,
    5. Lam KN
    . Staff safety during emergency airway management for COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(4):e19.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Alhazzani W,
    2. Møller MH,
    3. Arabi YM,
    4. Loeb M,
    5. Gong MN,
    6. Fan E,
    7. et al
    . Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Med 2020;46(5):854-887.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gaeckle NT,
    2. Lee J,
    3. Park Y,
    4. Kreykes G,
    5. Evans MD,
    6. Hogan CJ Jr..
    Aerosol Generation from the Respiratory Tract with Various Modes of Oxygen Delivery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;202(8):1115-1124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Li J,
    2. Ehrmann S
    . High-flow aerosol-dispersing versus aerosol-generating procedures. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;202(8):1069-1071.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Fink JB,
    3. Ehrmann S
    . High-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 patients: low risk of bio-aerosol dispersion. Eur Respir J 2020;55(5):2000892.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Fink JB,
    3. Elshafei AA,
    4. Stewart LM,
    5. Barbian HJ,
    6. Mirza SH,
    7. et al
    . Placing a mask on COVID-19 patients during high-flow nasal cannula therapy reduces aerosol particle dispersion. ERJ Open Res 2021;7(1):00519-2020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Vianello A,
    2. Arcaro G,
    3. Molena B,
    4. Turato C,
    5. Sukthi A,
    6. Guarnieri G,
    7. et al
    . High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy to treat patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure consequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Thorax 2020;75(11):998-1000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Raboud J,
    2. Shigayeva A,
    3. McGeer A,
    4. Bontovics E,
    5. Chapman M,
    6. Gravel D,
    7. et al
    . Risk factors for SARS transmission from patients requiring intubation: a multicentre investigation in Toronto, Canada. PLoS One 2010;5(5):e10717.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Leung CCH,
    2. Joynt GM,
    3. Gomersall CD,
    4. Wong WT,
    5. Lee A,
    6. Ling L,
    7. et al
    . Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula versus oxygen face mask for environmental bacterial contamination in critically ill pneumonia patients: a randomized controlled crossover trial. J Hosp Infect 2019;101(1):84-87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Haymet A,
    2. Bassi GL,
    3. Fraser JF
    . Airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2 while using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy: myth or reality? Intensive Care Med 2020;46(12):2248-2251.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Somsen GA,
    2. van Rijn CJM,
    3. Kooij S,
    4. Bem RA,
    5. Bonn D
    . Measurement of small droplet aerosol concentrations in public spaces using handheld particle counters. Phys Fluids (1994) 2020;32(12):121707.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ahn JY,
    2. An S,
    3. Sohn Y,
    4. Cho Y,
    5. Hyun JH,
    6. Baek YJ,
    7. et al
    . Environmental contamination in the isolation rooms of COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. J Hosp Infect 2020;106(3):570-576.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. van Doremalen N,
    2. Bushmaker T,
    3. Morris DH,
    4. Holbrook MG,
    5. Gamble A,
    6. Williamson BN,
    7. et al
    . Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med 2020;382(16):1564-1567.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 66 (6)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue 6
1 Jun 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Risk of Aerosol Formation During High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Critically Ill Subjects
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Risk of Aerosol Formation During High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Critically Ill Subjects
Reinout A Bem, Niels van Mourik, Rozalinde Klein-Blommert, Ingrid JB Spijkerman, Stefan Kooij, Daniel Bonn, Alexander P Vlaar
Respiratory Care Jun 2021, 66 (6) 891-896; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08756

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Risk of Aerosol Formation During High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Critically Ill Subjects
Reinout A Bem, Niels van Mourik, Rozalinde Klein-Blommert, Ingrid JB Spijkerman, Stefan Kooij, Daniel Bonn, Alexander P Vlaar
Respiratory Care Jun 2021, 66 (6) 891-896; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.08756
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • high-flow nasal cannula
  • oxygen therapy
  • aerosol
  • respiratory virus
  • pneumonia
  • ARDS
  • COVID-19

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire