Home
|
Inbox
|
Search
|
View Abstract
Comparison of the Three Systems of a High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Health Volunteers
Description
.abstract img { width:300px !important; height:auto; display:block; text-align:center; margin-top:10px } .abstract { overflow-x:scroll } .abstract table { width:100%; display:block; border:hidden; border-collapse: collapse; margin-top:10px } .abstract td, th { border-top: 1px solid #ddd; padding: 4px 8px; } .abstract tbody tr:nth-child(even) td { background-color: #efefef; } .abstract a { overflow-wrap: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; }
A7215 - Comparison of the Three Systems of a High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Health Volunteers
Author Block: M. Okuda, N. Tanaka; Federation of National Public Service Personnel Mutual Aid Association Hirakata Kohsai Hospital, Hirakata, Japan.
RATIONALE
Several reports have described the usefulness of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).
However, It was not compared HFNC of the constant-flow with the constant-pressure. In the current study, various methods were used to investigate the comparison of the three systems of a HFNC in healthy volunteers
The physiological mechanisms of the constant-flow and constant-pressure models of HFNC were studied in 10 healthy volunteers by the esophageal balloon method, the electrical impedance method HFNC was performed using three systems: the constant flow rate AIRVO 2, and Steady-air constant rate and the constant pressure type Vivo 50.
RESULTS
The tidal volume (TV) and the end-expiratory esophageal pressure (EEEP) increased during HFNC was performed using three systems. Transcutaneous PCO2 and respiratory rate (RR) and the end-inspiratory esophageal pressure (EIEP) decreased during HFNC was performed using three systems. As seen in Table 1, there were no significant differences among the systems for the difference in TV (mL) ((AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 ; 221.40±263.92 vs 257.30±315.06 vs 2 44.24±268.63 ; p>0.99), Difference in PtcCO2 (mmHg) (AIRVO 2: vs Steady-air: vs Vivo 50 ; −0.50±2.37 vs −0.30±1.06 vs −0.60±2.32 ; p>0.05), Difference in RR (bpm) (AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 : −3.26±2.14 vs −3.17±4.93 vs −4.18±2.68 ; p>079) , Difference in EIEP (cmH2O) (AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 : −3.18±4.70 vs −2.04±1.74 vs −1.77±2.56 ; p>0.85), Difference in EEEP (cmH2O) (AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 : −0.51±2.80 vs 0.71±2.34 vs 1.02±3.99 ; p>0.92 )parameters.
CONCLUSION
In the present study, there was no significant difference in the ventilator assistance effects between the constant flow and constant pressure types. (Table 1) Based on that finding, it seems that a HFNC using the NPPV device is also advantageous, in that NPPV and a HFNC can be used together in the same circuit.
Author Block: M. Okuda, N. Tanaka; Federation of National Public Service Personnel Mutual Aid Association Hirakata Kohsai Hospital, Hirakata, Japan.
RATIONALE
Several reports have described the usefulness of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).
However, It was not compared HFNC of the constant-flow with the constant-pressure. In the current study, various methods were used to investigate the comparison of the three systems of a HFNC in healthy volunteers
The physiological mechanisms of the constant-flow and constant-pressure models of HFNC were studied in 10 healthy volunteers by the esophageal balloon method, the electrical impedance method HFNC was performed using three systems: the constant flow rate AIRVO 2, and Steady-air constant rate and the constant pressure type Vivo 50.
RESULTS
The tidal volume (TV) and the end-expiratory esophageal pressure (EEEP) increased during HFNC was performed using three systems. Transcutaneous PCO2 and respiratory rate (RR) and the end-inspiratory esophageal pressure (EIEP) decreased during HFNC was performed using three systems. As seen in Table 1, there were no significant differences among the systems for the difference in TV (mL) ((AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 ; 221.40±263.92 vs 257.30±315.06 vs 2 44.24±268.63 ; p>0.99), Difference in PtcCO2 (mmHg) (AIRVO 2: vs Steady-air: vs Vivo 50 ; −0.50±2.37 vs −0.30±1.06 vs −0.60±2.32 ; p>0.05), Difference in RR (bpm) (AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 : −3.26±2.14 vs −3.17±4.93 vs −4.18±2.68 ; p>079) , Difference in EIEP (cmH2O) (AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 : −3.18±4.70 vs −2.04±1.74 vs −1.77±2.56 ; p>0.85), Difference in EEEP (cmH2O) (AIRVO 2 vs Steady-air vs Vivo 50 : −0.51±2.80 vs 0.71±2.34 vs 1.02±3.99 ; p>0.92 )parameters.
CONCLUSION
In the present study, there was no significant difference in the ventilator assistance effects between the constant flow and constant pressure types. (Table 1) Based on that finding, it seems that a HFNC using the NPPV device is also advantageous, in that NPPV and a HFNC can be used together in the same circuit.
|
Home
|
Inbox
|
Search
|