Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.
Sec. Pulmonary Medicine
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1506877

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation in healthy respiratory physicians: a self-controllednon-randomized study

Provisionally accepted
Hong Ye Hong Ye 1dan dan xiang dan dan xiang 1xiang yu zhu xiang yu zhu 2xiu wei Du xiu wei Du 3sheng yun shang sheng yun shang 1jing xu jing xu 1Yu Li Yu Li 4Yun yun Cheng Yun yun Cheng 5*zhong fei Yang zhong fei Yang 3*
  • 1 Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicin, Dezhou City People’s Hospital, Dezhou, China
  • 2 Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Dezhou City People’s Hospital, Dezhou, China
  • 3 Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Dezhou City People’s Hospital, Dezhou, China
  • 4 Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicin, Qilu Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
  • 5 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Dezhou City People’s Hospital, Dezhou, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) are commonly used for respiratory support. This study aims to first establish whether to use HFNC or NIV based on comfort levels, and subsequently evaluate diaphragmatic function under equivalent comfort levels to determine the optimal modality for clinical application.Methods: A self-controlled, non-randomized study was conducted with 10 healthy respiratory physicians as participants. Each subject was exposed to different HFNC settings, including flow rates of 20 L/min, 40 L/min, and 60 L/min at both 33 °C and 37 °C. Additionally, participants were assessed under NIV mode. Comfort levels as the primary outcome were evaluated using the Visual Numerical Scale (VNS). Meanwhile, vital signs and diaphragmatic mobility were monitored through an electrocardiograph and ultrasound.Results: HFNC at a flow rate of 20 L/min provided greater comfort than NIV. However, as the flow rate increased, this comfort benefit decreased. At 40 L/min, comfort levels were similar between HFNC and NIV, while at 60 L/min, HFNC was less comfortable than NIV. Notably, temperature variations between 33°C and 37°C had no significant effect on comfort. In addition, under conditions of similar comfort, HFNC demonstrated slightly greater diaphragmatic mobility compared to NIV.Our study indicated HFNC was the preferred choice for providing respiratory support at low to moderate flow rates in healthy volunteers not requiring respiratory support. However By contrast, at higher flow rates, NIV was recommended to enhance overall comfort and adherence during treatment NIV discomfort was lower than HFNC discomfort.

    Keywords: high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, comfort, Respiratory physicians Healthy volunteers, Flow rate

    Received: 06 Oct 2024; Accepted: 20 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Ye, xiang, zhu, Du, shang, xu, Li, Cheng and Yang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Yun yun Cheng, Department of Clinical Laboratory, Dezhou City People’s Hospital, Dezhou, China
    zhong fei Yang, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Dezhou City People’s Hospital, Dezhou, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.