Comparison of high flow nasal cannula oxygen administration to traditional nasal cannula oxygen therapy in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To determine the feasibility, degree of respiratory support, and safety of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy in sedated and awake healthy dogs, when compared to traditional nasal cannula (TNC) oxygen administration. Design Randomized experimental crossover study. Setting University research facility. Animals Eight healthy dogs. Interventions Variable flow rates (L/kg/min) were assessed, TNC: 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 and HFNC: 0.4, 1.0, 2.0, and 2.5. HFNC was assessed in sedated and awake dogs. Measurements Variables measured included: inspiratory/expiratory airway pressures, fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ), end‐tidal oxygen (ETO 2 ), end‐tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO 2 ), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO 2 ), partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO 2 ), temperature, heart/respiratory rate, arterial blood pressure, and pulse oximetry. Sedation status, complications, and predefined tolerance and respiratory scores were recorded. Main results Using HFNC, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) was achieved at 1 and 2 L/kg/min. CPAP was not higher at 2.5 than 2 L/kg/min, with worse tolerance scores. Expiratory airway pressures were increased when sedated ( P = 0.006). FiO 2 at 0.4 L/kg/min for both methods was 72%. FiO 2 with TNC 0.1 L/kg/min was 27% and not different from room air. The FiO 2 at all HFNC flow rates ≥1 L/kg/min was 95%. PaO 2 for HFNC 0.4 L/kg/min was lower than at other flow rates ( P = 0.005). The only noted complication was aerophagia. PaCO 2 was increased with sedation and use of HFNC when compared to baseline ( P = 0.006 ; P < 0.01). Conclusions Use of HFNC in dogs is feasible and safe, provides predictable oxygen support and provides CPAP, but may cause a mild increase in PaCO 2 . Flow rates of 1–2 L/kg/min are recommended. If using TNC, flow rates above 0.1 L/kg/min may attain higher FiO 2 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".