The Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in the Emergency Department and a Comparison of Its Efficacy With Noninvasive Ventilation.

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation has emerged as a convenient and handy oxygenation mode over the past few years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFNC is designed to provide humidified oxygen at high flow rates to subjects in a much more patient-compliant method. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been a powerful tool in treating dyspneic patients of different etiologies, yielding positive outcomes over many decades. HFNC has the potential to serve as an alternative to NIV for acutely breathless patients, offering better patient compliance.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted with a population size of 100 patients. The patients were randomly assigned to HFNC and NIV groups and further compared based on the clinical criteria, arterial oxygen pressure (PaO)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO) ratios, and modified Borg score. Simple proportions, mean, standard deviation, and chi-square tests were used. The chi-square test was applied to determine the association between the two attributes.

RESULTS

Both HFNC and NIV subset populations have shown substantial improvement in their clinical criteria in terms of respiratory rate, heart rate, oxygen saturation, PaO/FiO ratios, and modified Borg score over two and six hours with statistically significant improvement in oxygen saturations among HFNC subset in comparison to NIV subset (at two hours, p = 0.004; at six hours, p = 0.022). Secondary outcomes like the need for intubation (14% in HFNC, 22% in NIV) and mortality (4% in HFNC, 6% in NIV group) were noted, which were statistically insignificant in comparing their efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The study concluded that HFNC resulted in better clinical parameters than NIV, but the difference was statistically insignificant except for oxygen saturation. Similarly, HFNC resulted in a decreased need for intubation and less mortality compared to NIV.