Categories
Change Password!
Reset Password!
This pilot study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nasal high flow (NHF) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in the improvement of dyspnea (shortness of breath) in acute severe asthma in the emergency department.
This randomized controlled study found the use of nasal high
flow therapy to be advantageous over conventional oxygen therapy in terms of
providing respiratory support and oxygenation in adults with severe asthma and
lower oxygen levels in the emergency ward.
This pilot study
aimed to compare the effectiveness of nasal high flow (NHF) and conventional
oxygen therapy (COT) in the improvement of dyspnea (shortness of breath) in
acute severe asthma in the emergency department.
Thirty-seven patients aged ≥ 18 years with acute severe asthma and lower oxygen levels than normal (hypoxemia) were recruited. These patients were arbitrarily allotted to receive either COT (18 patients) or NHF (19 patients) for 2 hours.
Comparison of effects
of the interventions used on the degree of dyspnea evaluated via the modified
Borg scale (MBS) was the primary outcome. Comparisons of the numeric rating
scale (NRS) of dyspnea, the dyspnea scale evaluating accessory muscle use,
vital signs, and blood gas outcomes comprised of secondary outcomes.
The intention-to-treat analysis encompassed 37 patients. Both groups had a baseline mean MBS of 7.8. The mean MBSs in patients receiving COT and NHF were 3.3 and 1.4, respectively at 120 minutes.
Similar trends
followed in NRS and dyspnea score results to those of MBS. There were lower
respiratory rates with the use of NHF. No between- or in-group differences in
blood gas outcomes were noted.
NHF proved to be
efficacious in decreasing the severity of dyspnea and respiratory rate in
hypoxemic adult patients with asthma.
Academic Emergency Medicine
Nasal High-flow Oxygen Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy for Acute Severe Asthma Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Onlak Ruangsomboon et al.
Comments (0)