跳至主要内容
临床试验/DRKS00005132
DRKS00005132已完成未知

asal high - flow - oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: Effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional O2 therapy and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) - Highox

niversitätsklinikum Tübingen0 个研究点目标入组 14 人开始时间: 2013年7月8日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
未知
状态
已完成
发起方
入组人数
14

研究概览

简要总结

Abstract Background: Aim of the study was to compare the short-term effects of oxygen therapy via a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on functional and subjective respiratory parameters in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure in comparison to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and standard treatment via a Venturi mask. Methods: Fourteen patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure were treated with HFNC (FiO2 0.6, gas flow 55 l/min), NIV (FiO2 0.6, PEEP 5 cm H2O Hg, tidal volume 6-8 ml/kg ideal body weight,) and Venturi mask (FiO2 0.6, oxygen flow 15 l/min,) in a randomized order for 30 min each. Data collection included objective respiratory and circulatory parameters as well as a subjective rating of dyspnea and discomfort by the patients on a 10-point scale. In a final interview, all three methods were comparatively evaluated by each patient using a scale from 1 (=very good) to 6 (=failed) and the patients were asked to choose one method for further treatment. Results: PaO2 was highest under NIV (129 ± 38 mmHg) compared to HFNC (101 ± 34 mmHg, p <0.01 vs. NIV) and VM (85 ± 21 mmHg, p <0.001 vs. NIV, p <0.01 vs. HFNC, ANOVA). All other functional parameters showed no relevant differences. In contrast, dyspnea was significantly better using a HFNC (2.9 ± 2.1, 10-point Borg scale) compared to NIV (5.0 ± 3.3, p <0.05), whereas dyspnea rating under HFNC and VM (3.3 ± 2.3) was not significantly different. A similar pattern was found when patients rated their overall discomfort on the 10 point scale: HFNC 2.7 ± 1.8, VM 3.1 ± 2.8 (ns vs. HFNC), NIV 5.4 ± 3.1 (p <0.05 vs. HFNC). In the final evaluation patients gave the best ratings to HFNC 2.3 ± 1.4, followed by VM 3.2 ± 1.7 (ns vs. HFNC) and NIV 4.5 ± 1.7 (p <0.01 vs. HFNC and p <0.05 vs. VM). For further treatment 10 patients chose HFNC, three VM and one NIV. Conclusions: In hypoxic respiratory failure HFNC offers a good balance between oxygenation and comfort compared to NIV and Venturi mask and seems to be well tolerated by patients.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized controlled study
盲法
Open (masking not used)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 one(—)
性别
All

入选标准

  • Age > 18 years, signs of acute respiratory failure (tachypnea, dyspnea) with paO2 < 55 mmHg under room air

排除标准

  • - cardiac pulmonary edema
  • - COPD and /or ventilatory failure
  • - hemodynamic instability
  • - contraindications to NIV
  • - impaired consciousness or desorientation
  • - inability to give informed consent.

研究者

发起方
niversitätsklinikum Tübingen

相似试验