Feasibility of heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with respiratory failure in elderly patients
陈名珍,杨珺楠,李开来,赵旭静,薛安静,满姗姗,向平超
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.06.004
2022-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To investigate the feasibility of transnasal heated humidified high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with respiratory failure in elderly patients.Methods:A total of 176 elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with respiratory failure who were hospitalized at Peking University Shougang Hospital from December 2016 to January 2022 were enrolled, including 82 patients in an HFNC group and 94 patients in an NPPV group. After treatment, pulse oxygen saturation (SPO2), arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), oxygenation index (OI), respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), comfort score, discharge rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, rate of transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), and mortality were compared between the two groups. The independent sample t-test was used for comparison between the two groups. Statistical data are expressed in percentage or number of cases and the χ2 test was used for their comparisons.Results:The SPO2 values at 30 min, 1 h, and 6 h were significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.049,-2.618, and -3.314, P=0.043, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). SPO2 before discharge was significantly lower than that of the NPPV group (t=2.162, P=0.033), but OI at each time point and before discharge had no statistical significance (P＞0.05). MAP at 6 h was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the NPPV group (t=-2.209, P=0.029), but within the normal range. HRs at 2 h and 3 h in the HFNC group were significantly higher than those of the NPPV group (t=-2.199 and -2.336, P=0.030 and 0.021, respectively). There were no significant differences in RR, HR, or MAP between the two groups at other time points and before discharge (P＞0.05). There was no significant difference in PaCO2 between the two groups (P＞0.05). Comfort score in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NPPV group (t=-46.807, P＜0.001). There were no significant differences in discharge rate, ICU transfer rate, endotracheal intubation rate, and mortality between the two groups (P＞0.05).Conclusion:HFNC is as effective as NPPV in treating elderly patients with AECOPD complicated with type Ⅰ or mild type Ⅱ respiratory failure, and HFNC is more comfortable than NPPV.