Comparison of Actual Performance in the Flow and Fraction of Inspired O2 among Different High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices: A Bench Study.

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been recommended for use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory failure and many other clinical conditions. HFNC devices produced by different manufacturers may have varied performance. Whether there is a difference in these devices and the extent of the differences in performance remain unknown. Methods: Four HFNC devices (AIRVO 2, TNI softFlow 50, HUMID-BH, and OH-70C) and a ventilator with an HFNC module (bellavista 1000) were evaluated. The flow was set at 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 70, and 80 L/min, and the FiO2 was set at 21%, 26%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90%. Then, one side of the cannulas was clipped to simulate the compression, bending, or blocking of the nasal cannulas. The flow and FiO2 of the delivered gas were recorded and compared among settings and devices. Results: The actual-flow and actual-FiO2 delivered by different settings and devices varied. AIRVO 2 had superior performance in flow and FiO2 accuracy. bellavista 1000 and OH-70C had good performance in the accuracy of actual-flows and actual-FiO2, respectively. bellavista 1000 and HUMID-BH had a larger flow range from 10 to 80 L/min, but only bellavista 1000 could provide a stable flow with an excessive resistance up to 60 L/min. TNI softFlow 50 had the best flow compensation and could provide sufficient flow with excessive resistance at 20-50 L/min. Conclusions: The variation in flow, FiO2 settings, and devices could influence the actual-flow and actual-FiO2 delivered. AIRVO 2 and OH-70C showed better FiO2 accuracy. TNI softFlow 50, bellavista 1000, and HUMID-BH could lower the risk of insufficient flow support due to accidental compression or blocking of the cannulas. In addition, ventilators with HFNC modules provided comparable flow and FiO2 and could be an alternative to standalone HFNC devices.

A case for inspiratory muscle training in SCI: potential role as a preventative tool in infectious respiratory diseases like COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory complications (RC) are a leading cause of death after spinal cord injury (SCI) due to compromised immune function and respiratory muscle weakness. Thus, individuals with SCI are at high risk of developing COVID-19 related RC. Results of a SCI clinical trial showed a supervised respiratory muscle training (RMT) program decreased risk of developing RC. The feasibility of conducting unsupervised RMT is not well documented. Four publications (n = 117) were identified in which unsupervised RMT was performed. Significant improvements in respiratory outcomes were reported in two studies: Maximal Inspiratory and Expiratory Pressure (MIP40% and MEP25%, respectively), Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF9%), seated and supine Forced Vital Capacity (FVC23% and 26%, respectively), and Peak Cough Flow (28%). This review and case report will attempt to show that an inspiratory muscle training (IMT) home exercise program (HEP) is feasible and may prepare the respiratory system for RC associated with COVID-19 in patients with SCI. CASE PRESENTATION: A 23-year-old with tetraplegia (P1), history of mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization for RC, completed 27 IMT HEP sessions in one month. MIP and sustained MIP (SMIP) increased from baseline by 28% and 26.5%, respectively. Expiratory volumes and rates also improved (FVC, FEV1, and PEF: 11.7%, 8.3%, and 14.2%, respectively). DISCUSSION: The effects of COVID-19 on patients with SCI remains inconclusive, but recent literature and the results of this case suggest that unsupervised IMT is feasible and may limit the severity of RC in patients with SCI who contract COVID-19.

Inspiratory effort and breathing pattern change in response to varying the assist level: A physiological study.

AIM: To describe the response of breathing pattern and inspiratory effort upon changes in assist level and to assesss if changes in respiratory rate may indicate changes in respiratory muscle effort. METHODS: Prospective study of 82 patients ventilated on proportional assist ventilation (PAV+). At three levels of assist (20 %-50 %-80 %), patients' inspiratory effort and breathing pattern were evaluated using a validated prototype monitor. RESULTS: Independent of the assist level, a wide range of respiratory rates (16-35br/min) was observed when patients' effort was within the accepted range. Changing the assist level resulted in paired changes in inspiratory effort and rate of the same tendency (increase or decrease) in all but four patients. Increasing the level in assist resulted in a 31 % (8-44 %) decrease in inspiratory effort and a 10 % (0-18 %) decrease in respiratory rate. The change in respiratory rate upon the change in assist correlated modestly with the change in the effort (R = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Changing assist level results in changes in both respiratory rate and effort in the same direction, with change in effort being greater than that of respiratory rate. Yet, neither the magnitude of respiratory rate change nor the resulting absolute value may reliably predict the level of effort after a change in assist.