Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in ICU: A before-and-after study.
Clicks: 307
ID: 77987
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
30.0
/100
307 views
55 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Non-intubated intensive care patients commonly receive supplemental oxygen by high-flow face mask (HFFM), simple face mask (FM) and nasal prongs (NP) during their ICU admission. However, high-flow nasal prongs (HFNP) offer considerable performance capabilities that may sufficiently meet all their oxygen therapy requirements.To assess the feasibility, safety and cost-effectiveness of introducing a protocol in which HFNP was the primary oxygen delivery device for non-intubated intensive care patients.Prospective 4-week before-and-after study (6 months apart) for all adult patients admitted to a 22-bed tertiary ICU in Melbourne, Australia.117 patients (57 before, 60 after) were included: 86 (73.5%) received mechanical ventilation. Feasibility revealed a significant reduction in HFFM (52.6-0%, p<.001), FM (35.1-8.3%, p=.002) and NP (75.4-36.7%, p<.001) use and an increase in HFNP use (31.6-81.7%, p<.05) during the after period. Following extubation, there was a significant reduction in HFFM use (65.7% vs. 0%, p<.05) and an increase HFNP use (8.6% vs. 87.5%, p<.05). Costing was in favour of the after period with a consumable cost saving per patient (AUD $32.56 vs. $17.62, p<.05). During the after period, more patients were discharged from ICU with HFNP than during the before period (5 vs. 33 patients, p<.05) and fewer patients (5 vs. 14 patients) used three or more oxygen delivery devices. Safety outcomes demonstrated no significant difference in the number of intubations, re-intubations, readmissions or non-invasive ventilation use between the two time periods.Using HFNP as the primary oxygen delivery method for non-intubated intensive care patients was feasible, appeared safe, and the oxygen device costs were reduced. The findings of our single-centre study support further multi-centre evaluations of HFNP therapy protocols in non-ventilated intensive care patients.
Abstract Quality Issue:
This abstract appears to be incomplete or contains metadata (104 words).
Try re-searching for a better abstract.
| Reference Key |
fealy2016nasalaustralian
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Fealy, Nigel;Osborne, Claire;Eastwood, Glenn M;Glassford, Neil;Hart, Graeme;Bellomo, Rinaldo; |
| Journal | australian critical care : official journal of the confederation of australian critical care nurses |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.1016/j.aucc.2015.05.003
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.