Effects of an asymmetrical high flow nasal cannula interface in hypoxemic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Optimal noninvasive respiratory support for patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure should minimize work of breathing without increasing the transpulmonary pressure. Recently, an asymmetrical high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) interface (Duet, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd), in which the caliber of each nasal prong is different, was approved for clinical use. This system might reduce work of breathing by lowering minute ventilation and improving respiratory mechanics. Methods We enrolled 10 patients ≥ 18 years of age who were admitted to the Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico ICU in Milan, Italy, and had a PaO 2 /FiO 2 < 300 mmHg during HFNC support with a conventional cannula. We investigated whether the asymmetrical interface, compared to a conventional high flow nasal cannula, reduces minute ventilation and work of breathing. Each patient underwent support with the asymmetrical interface and the conventional interface, applied in a randomized sequence. Each interface was provided at a flow rate of 40 l/min followed by 60 l/min. Patients were continuously monitored with esophageal manometry and electrical impedance tomography. Results Application of the asymmetrical interface resulted in a −13.5 [−19.4 to (−4.5)] % change in minute ventilation at a flow rate of 40 l/min, p = 0.006 and a −19.6 [−28.0 to (−7.5)] % change at 60 l/min, p = 0.002, that occurred despite no change in PaCO 2 (35 [33–42] versus 35 [33–43] mmHg at 40 l/min and 35 [32–41] versus 36 [32–43] mmHg at 60 l/min). Correspondingly, the asymmetrical interface lowered the inspiratory esophageal pressure–time product from 163 [118–210] to 140 [84–159] (cmH 2 O*s)/min at a flow rate of 40 l/min, p = 0.02 and from 142 [123–178] to 117 [90–137] (cmH 2 O*s)/min at a flow rate of 60 l/min, p = 0.04. The asymmetrical cannula did not have any impact on oxygenation, the dorsal fraction of ventilation, dynamic lung compliance, or end-expiratory lung impedance, suggesting no major effect on PEEP, lung mechanics, or alveolar recruitment. Conclusions An asymmetrical HFNC interface reduces minute ventilation and work of breathing in patients with mild-to-moderate hypoxemic respiratory failure supported with a conventional interface. This appears to be primarily driven by increased ventilatory efficiency due to enhanced CO 2 clearance from the upper airway.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".