Abstract
Purpose of Review
This review instantiates the efficacy and safety of HFNC in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.
Recent Findings
Globally, the healthcare system is facing an unprecedented crisis of resources due to the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, fatigue, and pneumonia are the most common symptoms associated with it. The incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU patients ranges from 29.1 to 89.9%. Supplemental oxygen therapy is the main stay treatment for managing hypoxemic respiratory failure. The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a novel non-invasive strategy for better oxygenation and ventilation in critically ill patients. In this grim scenario, a reduction in mechanical ventilation by means of HFNC is of prime interest
Summary
HFNC is considered an aerosol-generating intervention with the risk of viral aerosolization with a concern of potential nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is no consensus regarding the use of HFNC in novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). HFNC seems to be an effective and safe treatment modality in acute respiratory failure with optimal settings and selection of ideal patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the burning issue worldwide with an unprecedented crisis in healthcare systems. Fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, fatigue, and radiological corroboration of pneumonia are the most common symptoms associated with it. Acute respiratory infection due to COVID-19 is termed as novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP) [1]. The initial reports from China indicate severe clinical conditions in 14% of patients, and intensive care is required in 5% of patients [2]. The incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU patients ranges from 29.1 to 89.9% [3].
Supplemental oxygen is the cornerstone for managing hypoxemic respiratory failure. The use of a nasal cannula, bag valve masks, non-rebreathing masks, or any other low flow devices prompts entrainment of room air as the inspiratory flow rates in quiet breathing (30 L/min) surmounts the possible maximum supplemental oxygen flow of these devices (15 L/min), resulting in limiting the delivered FiO2 during respiratory distress (>100 L/min) [4].
The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), delivering 60 L/min warm, humidified oxygen with precise titration of FiO2 through nasal prongs, has emerged as a popular non-invasive strategy for better oxygenation and ventilation in critically ill patients by prevailing over the flow limitation of the low flow devices [5].
HFNC has been found to be beneficial for avoiding intubation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure patients in comparison with conventional oxygen devices. However, the majority of the studies are not in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, and bio-aerosol dispersion due to the high gas flow is a serious concern. Thus, the aim of this review is to address the efficacy and safety of HFNC in COVID-19.
Overview of Action
HFNC provides a flow-dependent FiO2 by reducing room air entrainment through a greater flow than inspiratory demand (Fig. 1) [7]. An increase in flow from 15 to 45 L/min results into a subsequent rise in FiO2 from 0.60 to 0.90 [8].
It reduces the work of breathing by washing out the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the upper airways, thereby diminishing the anatomical dead space [9]. The anatomic dead space is found to be reduced significantly from 20 to 60 cc with a concomitant increase in flow from 15 to 45 L/min [10].
HFNC ensures better mucociliary clearance by proving heated and humidified oxygen. The optimally conditioned oxygen reduces the work of breathing also and provides better conductance and compliance in comparison with dry and cooler one. [11, 12]
It also provides low-level positive pressure. A flow of 50 L/min provides a mean airway pressure between 1.7 cm H2O (mouth open) and 3.3 cm H2O (mouth closed) [13]. The increase in end-expiratory lung volumes provides better alveolar recruitment and thereby reduces the risk of atelectasis and improves the oxygenation. However, as most of the patients in respiratory distress tend to breathe with an open mouth, the effect may not be evident [14].
In comparison with non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the oral intake, and toileting of secretions, communication is not hindered with HFNC [6].
Relevance in COVID-19
The SARS-CoV-2 virus is mediated by angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is abundantly expressed in the alveolar epithelial cells [15, 16]. Initially, the virus replicates in the epithelium of the upper airways. With further multiplication, it infiltrates the pulmonary parenchyma, causing an inflammatory response by means of vasodilation, increased endothelial permeability, and leukocyte recruitment, resulting in focal pneumonia and thereby hypoxemia [17].
At present, two types of NCIP are recognized. The L type presents with a lower lung elastance along with normal lung compliance. On the contrary, The H type manifests as classic ARDS with, low compliance, increased extravascular lung water, and high elasticity [18, 19].
The HFNC has a potential role for reducing the requirement of intubation in both the phenotypes, preferentially in L type as it is capable to meet the higher oxygen demand by means of providing heated and humidified oxygen 21 to 100% up to 60 L/min [6].
The Evidence So Far
HFNC undoubtedly has better patient compliance [20]. In comparison with NIV for providing a tidal volume of 7 to 10 mL/kg, the use of HFNC (50 L/min; Fio2, 100%) in patients with PaO2/FIO2 < 200 results has been associated with lower intubation rate (50%, 38%, respectively) and mortality rate (49%, 30%, respectively) [21].
HFNC is found to be non-inferior to NIV for reintubation in patients after cardiac surgery [22] as well as extubation after acute respiratory failure [23].
A recent systematic review has reported that HFNC may reduce the requirement of mechanical ventilation in comparison with conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; I2 = 52%) with a potential risk of airborne transmission. However, the included studies are not providing direct evidence regarding COVID-19 [24•].
Wang et al. reported that HFNC was the most common ventilation support for patients with NCIP in China. However, patients with PaO2/FiO2 <200 were associated with HFNC failure. [25•]
Another retrospective study from China reported HFNC as an effective therapeutic modality in 61.9%. of severe COVID-19 patients. The respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ROX index SpO2/FiO2 × RR) > 6.10 at 24 h after starting HFNC was a good predictor for positive outcome [26•].
Globally, the COVID-19-related respiratory failure is constraining the ICU resources and mechanical ventilators. In this grim scenario, a reduction in mechanical ventilation by means of HFNC is of prime interest with a potential risk of nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The clinical evidence in this regard is still evolving (Table 1) [27,28,29,30,31,32].
Controversy
At present, there is no consensus regarding the use of HFNC in NCIP across the eminent organizations (Table 2). In view of potential aerosol-generating modality, some guidelines are skeptical about it. Some institutions strongly favor early intubation in view of the suspected high failure rate of non-invasive approaches in COVID-19 that often lands in to crash intubation, resulting in an increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 in caregivers. The alternative opinion is the use of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), high-energy particulate accumulator (HEPA) filters, negative-pressure rooms are sufficient for protection. Additionally, the non-invasive approaches help in avoiding unnecessary intubations and well-known aerosol generators thereby protecting the staff and ensuring optimal utilization of resources [33, 34].
The WHO guidelines advocate for HFNC prior to intubation in the overall plan of management [43••]. Similarly, the surviving sepsis guidelines of SCCM also recommend for HFNC over non-invasive ventilation during conventional oxygen therapy failure [38].
HFNC is considered an aerosol-generating intervention with the risk of viral aerosolization. The dispersion is maximum at 60 L/min; however, the smoke dispersion distance from the manikin is similar to a simple oxygen mask at 15 L/min [44].
The use of a proper fitting nasal cannula, along with a droplet mask placed over the nasal interface with a high limit of 30–40 L/min, preferably in a negative-pressure room is beneficial for reducing the risk of dispersion of aerosol [6, 45••].
HFNC Failure
The application of HFNC demands vigilant monitoring as unanticipated intubation bears an increased risk of aerosol exposure. Tachypnoea, tachycardia, inadequate oxygenation despite a high-flow rate, altered sensorium, and hypercarbia are the signs of impending failure. Roca et al. [46••] suggested that a high specificity for ROX score < 3.85 at 12 h is associated with failure.
Conclusion
HFNC is an easy and safe treatment modality in acute respiratory failure with multiple physiological benefits. However, further studies regarding optimal settings, initiation, selection of patients, and duration of therapy are the need of the hour.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648 Epub ahead of print.
Wunsch H. Mechanical ventilation in COVID-19: interpreting the current epidemiology. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202004-1385ED.
Drake MG. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen in adults: an evidence-based assessment. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15:145–55.
Roca O, Riera J, Torres F, Masclans JR. High-flow oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure. Respir Care. 2010;55:408–13.
Rali AS, Garies T, Narendra D, Patel P, Guntupalli K. High flow nasal cannula – COVID 19 and beyond. Indian J Respir Care. 2020;9:134–40.
Sztrymf B, Messika J, Bertrand F, et al. Beneficial effects of humidified high flow nasal oxygen in critical care patients: a prospective pilot study. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:1780–6.
Chanques G, Riboulet F, Molinari N, et al. Comparison of three high flow oxygen therapy delivery devices: a clinical physiological cross-over study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79:1344–55.
Mauri T, Turrini C, Eronia N, et al. Physiologic effects of high-flow nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:1207–15.
Möller W, Feng S, Domanski U, et al. Nasal high flow reduces dead space. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2017;122(1):191–7. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00584.2016.
Chanques G, Constantin JM, Sauter M, et al. Discomfort associated with under humidified high-flow oxygen therapy in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:996–1003.
Chidekel A, Zhu Y, Wang J, et al. The effects of gas humidification with high-flow nasal cannula on cultured human airway epithelial cells. Pulm Med. 2012;2012:380686.
Parke RL, Eccleston ML, McGuinness SP. The effects of flow on airway pressure during nasal high-flow oxygen therapy. Respir Care. 2011;56:1151–5.
Corley A, Caruana LR, Barnett AG, et al. Oxygen delivery through high-flow nasal cannulae increase end-expiratory lung volume and reduce respiratory rate in post-cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:998–1004.
Donoghue M, Hsieh F, Baronas E, et al. A novel angiotensin converting enzyme related carboxypeptidase (ACE2) converts angiotensin I to angiotensin 1-9. Circ Res. 2000;87(5):E1–9.
South AM, Diz DI, Chappell MC. COVID-19, ACE2, and the cardiovascular consequences. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2020;318(5):H1084–90.
Peiris JS, Chu CM, Cheng VC, et al. HKU/UCH SARS Study Group. Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia: a prospective study. Lancet. 2003;361(9371):1767–72.
Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:1099–102.
Gattinoni L, Coppola S, Cressoni M, et al. Covid-19 does not lead to a “typical” acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201:1299–300.
Spoletini G, Alotaibi M, Blasi F, Hill NS. Heated humidified highflow nasal oxygen in adults: mechanisms of action and clinical implications. Chest. 2015;148(1):253–61.
Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al. FLORALI Study Group; REVA Network. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2185–96.
Stéphan F, Barrucand B, Petit P, et al. BiPOP Study Group. Highflow nasal oxygen vs noninvasive positive airway pressure in hypoxemic patients after cardiothoracic surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2331–9.
Hernández G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, et al. Effect of post extubation high-flow nasal cannula vs non-invasive ventilation on reintubation and post extubation respiratory failure in high-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1565–74.
• Agarwal A, Basmaji J, Muttalib F, et al. High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission. Les canules nasales à haut débit pour le traitement de l’insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë chez les patients atteints de la COVID-19: comptes rendus systématiques de l’efficacité et des risques d’aérosolisation, de dispersion et de transmission de l’infection. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(9):1217–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01740-2A very important paper that addresses efficacy and safety concerns of HFNC in the context of a pandemic, utilizing the data from previous corona virus infections.
• Wang K, Zhao W, Li J, Shu W, Duan J. The experience of high-flow nasal cannula in hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in two hospitals of Chongqing, China. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00653-z. A very important paper that addresses efficacy of HFNC in COVID-19 patients.
• Hu M, Zhou Q, Zheng R, Li X, Ling J, Chen Y, et al. Application of high-flow nasal cannula in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. 2020. Assets.researchsquare.com. 2020 [cited 13 August 2020]. Available from: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-34561/v1/9382381f-070b-49a1-8ea6-fdfb81359421.pdf. A very important paper that addresses the important predictor in COVID-19 patients for successful use of HFNC.
Wang Y, Lu X, Li Y, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of 344 intensive care patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(11):1430–4. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202003-0736LE.
Geng S, Mei Q, Zhu C, et al. High flow nasal cannula is a good treatment option for COVID-19. Heart Lung. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.03.018.
Yang X, Yu Y, Xu J, et al. Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(5):475–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30079-5.
Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3.
Liao X, Chen H, Wang B, Li Z, Zhang Z, Li W, et al. Critical care for severe COVID-19: a population-based study from a province with low case-fatality rate in China. medRxiv. 2020; 2020.03.22.20041277. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.22.20041277.
Luo X, Xia H, Yang W, Wang B, Guo T, Xiong J, et al. Characteristics of patients with COVID-19 during epidemic ongoing outbreak in Wuhan, China. medRxiv. 2020; 2020.03.19.20033175. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.19.20033175.
Raoof S, Nava S, Carpati C, Hill NS. High-flow, noninvasive ventilation and awake (nonintubation) proning in patients with COVID-2019 with respiratory failure [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 15]. Chest. 2020;S0012-3692(20):31910–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.013.
Winck JC, Ambrosino N. COVID-19 pandemic and non invasive respiratory management: every Goliath needs a David. An evidence based evaluation of problems. Pulmonology. 2020;26(4):213–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.04.013.
ANZICS COVID-19 Guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society; 2020. https://www.anzics.com.au/coronavirus-guidelines/ [Accessed 12 Aug 2020]
Harari SA, Vitacca M, Blasi F, Centanni S, Santus PA, Tarsia P.Managing the respiratory care of patients with COVID-19; 2020.https://www.ersnet.org/covid-19-blog/sharing-italian-recommendations [Accessed 12 Aug 2020]
Respiratory care committee of Chinese Thoracic S. Expert consensus on preventing nosocomial transmission during respiratory care for critically ill patients infected by 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2020;17:E020.
Alhazzani W, Moller MH, Arabi YM, Loeb M, Gong MN, Fan E, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Crit Care Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004363 Epub ahead of print.
Kluge S, Janssens U, Welte T, Weber-Carstens S, Marx G, Karagiannidis C. Recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2020;115:175–7.
NHS. Guidance for the role and use of non-invasive respiratory support in adult patients with COVID19 (confirmed or suspected) 6 April 2020, Version 3; 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/secondary-care/other-resources/specialty-guides/ [Accessed 12 Aug 2020].
Gomez CC, Penuelas Rodríguez O, Torne LM, et al. Recomendaciones deconsenso respecto al soporte respiratorio no invasivo en el paciente adulto con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda secundaria a infección por SARSCoV-2. Arch Bronconeumol. 2020; https://www.sedar.es/images/site/NOTICIAS/coronavirus/ConsensoCOVID-19FINALVALIDADOSOCIEDADES15M.pdf [Accessed 12 Aug 2020].
Societade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Terapias respiratória não invasivas em contexto de doente agudo/crónico agudizadona COVID-19. https://www.sppneumologia.pt/uploads/subcanais conteudos ficheiros/terapias spp.pdf
•• World Health Organization. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected: interim guidance, 13 March 2020: World Health Organization; 2020. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331446. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [Accessed 12 Aug 2020]. This article provides educational guidance on the use and concerns of HFNC in the context of current COVID-19 pandemic
Hui DS, Chow BK, Lo T, et al. Exhaled air dispersion during high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus CPAP via different masks. Eur Respir J. 2019;53:1802339.
•• Li J, Fink JB, Ehrmann S. High-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 patients: low risk of bio-aerosol dispersion. Eur Respir J. 2020;55(5):2000892. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00892-2020 Published 2020 May 14. This article provides comprehensive insight on the safety of HFNC in the context of COVID-19.
•• Roca O, Caralt B, Messika J, et al. An index combining respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict outcome of nasal high flow therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(11):1368–76 This article provide interesting insight on successful utilization of HFNC.
Acknowledgments
Nil
Sources of funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Dr. Abhishek Singh: conceptualization, search strategy. Dr. Puneet Khanna: conceptualization, and editing. Dr. Soumya Sarkar: study selection, data extraction, and drafted the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
None of the authors has any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Permissions
NA
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Critical Care Anesthesia
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, A., Khanna, P. & Sarkar, S. High-Flow Nasal Cannula, a Boon or a Bane for COVID-19 Patients? An Evidence-Based Review. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 11, 101–106 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-021-00439-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-021-00439-4