Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Mater Domini, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Anesthesia and Intensive Care, "Maggiore della Carità" Hospital, Novara, Italy.
Respir Care. 2019 Oct;64(10):1231-1239. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06871. Epub 2019 Jun 4.
This study assessed the effects of a new interface that combined CPAP 10 cm HO 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.
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 HO 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.
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) ( < .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 ( = .001), thickness at end-inspiration and thickness at end-expiration ( < .003 for both). At all flows, breathing frequency was slightly, although significantly, lower with CPAP + HFNC than with HFNC alone ( < .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.
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.
本研究评估了一种新界面的效果,该界面将 CPAP 10 cm HO 与高流量鼻插管(HFNC)结合使用,在健康志愿者中以不同的流速使用头盔。结果测量包括咽压力、膈肌动力学、呼吸频率、头盔内的温度和舒适度。
在自主呼吸期间进行基线评估后,以 30、40 和 50 L/min 的流速应用 HFNC。随后,志愿者接受 10 cm HO 头盔 CPAP 治疗,同时以 30、40 和 50 L/min 的流速接受 CPAP+HFNC 治疗。我们测量了 HFNC 时呼气末和吸气末咽压力的变化,参考自主呼吸时的 HFNC 和 CPAP+HFNC 时的 CPAP,呼气末膈肌位移和厚度以及吸气末厚度,呼吸频率,头盔内的温度,雾效的发生和舒适度。
总体而言,吸气末咽压力变化较小,临床上不重要。闭口时,随着 HFNC 流量增加,HFNC(从 2.8 增加到 7.7)和 CPAP+HFNC(从 2.7 增加到 3.8)期间呼气末咽压力的变化增加(所有比较均 <.001)。这些变化在张口呼吸时会减弱。HFNC≥40 L/min 和 CPAP+HFNC≥40 L/min 与自主呼吸和 CPAP 相比,分别增加了膈肌位移(=.001)、吸气末厚度和呼气末厚度(均 <.003)。在所有流量下,CPAP+HFNC 的呼吸频率略低于 HFNC 单独使用(<.003)。与 CPAP 单独使用相比,CPAP+HFNC 在≤40 L/min 时,头盔内的温度略有升高,但无统计学意义。从未发生过雾效,而舒适度始终被评为最佳,各试验之间无差异。
CPAP+HFNC 耐受良好,无不良反应。根据我们的发现,当添加 HFNC 时,无需改变 CPAP 水平。至少在健康受试者中,CPAP+HFNC 以 30 L/min 似乎是最佳组合。