•  
  •  
 

Corresponding Author

Mohamed Abd-elwahab Ibrahim Mohamed ElZeftawy

Document Type

Original Article

Abstract

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is widely accepted as the principal treatment for individuals with acute respiratory failure (ARF). The high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is considered to provide greater comfort in cases where NIV is not compatible.

Aim of the work: To assess the efficacy of HFNC oxygen therapy compared to NIV in the treatment of ARF.

Patients and methods: This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on fifty patients with ARF due to respiratory etiology. Participants were equally divided, according to the ventilatory aid employed, into HFNC and NIV groups.

Results: The average PaO2 value at 30 minutes exhibited a statistically significant increase in the HFNC group as compared to the NIV group. However, no statistically significant changes were seen between the study groups at the beginning or after 120 minutes. None of the HFNC and NIV groups exhibited statistically significant differences in terms of clinical progression, length of ICU stay, and outcome. A notable increase in mouth dryness was observed in the NIV group, but a significant increase in nasal irritation/dryness was observed in the HFNC group.

Conclusion: HFNC oxygen therapy is as effective as NIV in the management of ARF, with coinciding clinical success, overall ICU stay, clinical outcome, and complications spectrum.

Keywords

Acute respiratory failure; Non-invasive ventilation; Nasal cannula oxygen therapy

Subject Area

Chest

Download

Share

COinS