Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center (CRDRC), National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2
Chronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Critical Care Quality Improvement Research Center, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5
Anesthesiology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
6
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
7
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Science, Zahedan, Iran
Abstract
Background: Despite limited research on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) alternating with noninvasive ventilation (NIV), this study investigates its effect on intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
Materials and Methods: This clinical trial study at Masih Deneshvari Hospital (Tehran) compared NIV vs. alternating NIV with HFNC for ICU patients. It assessed intubation, mortality, and vitals. Patients were informed, and nurses were trained for optimal care. Daily follow-up ensured data collection.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 66.3±19.7 years, which was 67.1±14.8 years in the NIV group and 65.5±14.9 years in the HFNC+NIV group, respectively. The distribution of patients in terms of APACHE and symptoms showed no significant difference (P=0.453). The mean HR in the two groups, NIV and HFNC+NIV, before the study was 113.30±5.25 and 112.43±5.80, respectively. At the end of the study, it was 94.78±17.53 and 94.48±17.47, respectively, with no significant difference found between the two groups. The mean RR before the beginning of this study was not significantly different between the two groups, while it was 16.61±4.23 and 17.91±1.78 in the NIV and HFNC+NIV groups, respectively, at the end of the study (P=0.043). PO2 created a greater distinction between the two groups based on the decision tree analysis, where the NIV group was more likely to have values of PO2<70.
Conclusion: Based on the findings presented in our study, no difference was found between the use of NIV and NIV + HFNC, but HFNC + NIV was a more tolerable technique for patients.
Keywords
Subjects
