High-flow Nasal Oxygen Therapy Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure and Post-Mechanical Ventilation

Background Oxygen therapy is essential in the management of patients with respiratory problem, including after endotracheal extubation. Conventional oxygen devices may be inadequate in patients requiring high inspiratory flow. HFNC has a growing place in the repertoire of respiratory therapies. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficiency, tolerability, and outcome of HFNC in patients with respiratory failure and post-mechanical ventilation patients in comparison to NIV and conventional oxygen devices. Results In case of respiratory failure patients, there was non-significant statistical difference between HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy and NIV, regarding the difference in ABGs, vital data, and dyspnea scores, at successive time points, except for PO2 after 30 min in patients received NIV, which was significantly higher. There was non-significant statistical difference between the three mentioned modalities of oxygen therapy regarding comfort and clinical outcome. In case of post-extubation patients, there was non-significant statistical difference between the HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy regarding clinical parameters, comfort and outcome. Conclusions HFNC is comparable to conventional oxygen therapy in respiratory failure and post-extubation patients. HFNC is comparable to NIV in respiratory failure patients.