A decrease in respiratory rate was not accompanied by more-meaningful improvements in outcomes.
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFO) therapy is an evidence-based modality for treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure (N Engl J Med 2015 Jun 4; 372:2185). Now, investigators in a Thai emergency department (ED) have compared the effectiveness of HFO versus conventional oxygen therapy in 128 patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema.
The respiratory rate at 60 minutes (the primary outcome) was reduced with HFO (21.8 vs. 25.1 breaths per minute; difference, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.9–4.6). However, HFO provided no benefit in use of noninvasive ventilation or intubation; and mortality, admission rate, and lengths of ED and hospital stay were unchanged.
Reviewing Author
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardPortola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Speaker’s BureauPeerView Institute for Medical Education
Grant/Research SupportAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality; CDC; NIH–National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; NIH–National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); NIH–NIAID–Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group; Merck; Pfizer; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Shire; Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Novartis; bioMérieux; Siemens; Rapid Pathogen Screening; Magnolia; Stago; Innovative Biosensors; Molecular Detection, Inc.; Dyax Corp.; Trius Pharmaceuticals
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardPortola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Speaker’s BureauPeerView Institute for Medical Education
Grant/Research SupportAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality; CDC; NIH–National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; NIH–National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); NIH–NIAID–Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group; Merck; Pfizer; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Shire; Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Novartis; bioMérieux; Siemens; Rapid Pathogen Screening; Magnolia; Stago; Innovative Biosensors; Molecular Detection, Inc.; Dyax Corp.; Trius Pharmaceuticals