View : 427 Download: 0

Factors Associated With Failure of High-Flow Nasal Cannula

Title
Factors Associated With Failure of High-Flow Nasal Cannula
Authors
Kim, Beong KiKim, SuaKim, Chi YoungCha, JaehyungLee, Young SeokKo, YousangKwack, Won GunPark, So YoungKim, Je Hyeong
Ewha Authors
박소영
SCOPUS Author ID
박소영scopus
Issue Date
2020
Journal Title
RESPIRATORY CARE
ISSN
0020-1324JCR Link

1943-3654JCR Link
Citation
RESPIRATORY CARE vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 1276 - 1284
Keywords
hypoxiarespiratory insufficiencyoxygen inhalation therapyhigh-flow nasal cannula
Publisher
DAEDALUS ENTERPRISES INC
Indexed
SCIE; SCOPUS WOS
Document Type
Article
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is rapidly increasing without clear indications, creating the potential for overuse or misuse and the accompanying risk of adverse events. The purpose of this study was to determine the factors associated with HFNC failure by examining the current clinical practice of HFNC. METHODS: From July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018, in 5 university -affiliated hospitals in the Republic of Korea, a total of 1,161 admitted adult subjects who had HFNU administered were retrospectively enrolled and their medical records were reviewed. RESULTS: Pulmonary diseases including pneumonia (n = 757, 65.2%) were the most common reason for use of HFNC. Subjects with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) or do-not-intubate (DNI) orders comprised 33.8% of the study population (n = 392); 563 subjects (485%) were escalated directly to HFNC from low-flow devices without applying reservoir or other high-flow devices. In the non-DNR/DNI subjects, arterial blood gas was not monitored in 15.2% and 14.8% of subjects before and after HFNC application, respectively, and it was not monitored in 28.0% just before HFNC weaning. The HFNC failure rate was 27.0% in non-DNR/DNI subjects, and the HFNC failure was significantly associated with the decision by residents to apply HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.29-3.18, P = .002), high breathing frequency (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10, P < .001) <= 6 h before HFNC application, low S-aO2 (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95, P < .001) <= 6 h before HFNC application, low S-pO2 (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.98, P < .001) <= 6 h before HFNC application, and the ratio of S-pO2/F-IO2, to breathing frequency (ROX index) <= 6 h after HFNC application (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.92, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: HFNC was practiced without applying reservoir or other high-flow devices before application and without appropriate arterial blood gas monitoring during HFNC therapy. HFNC failure was significantly associated with the decision by the resident to use HFNC, breathing frequency, S-aO2 and S-pO2 <= 6 h before HFNC application, and with the ROX index <= 6 h after HFNC application.
DOI
10.4187/respcare.07403
Appears in Collections:
의과대학 > 의학과 > Journal papers
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

BROWSE