Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used noninvasive form of respiratory support in acute settings; however, evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Materials and methodology: The European Respiratory Society task force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The task force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to summarise evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF. Results: The task force developed eight conditional recommendations, suggesting the use of 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxaemic ARF; 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxaemic ARF; 3) HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV; 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications; 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications; 6) HFNC over COT in nonsurgical patients at low risk of extubation failure; 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV; and 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with COPD and hypercapnic ARF. Conclusions: HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of noninvasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

Background: While the role of acute non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to improve outcome in acute life-threatening hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD, the evidence of clinical efficacy of long-term home NIV (LTH-NIV) for management of COPD is less. This document provides evidence-based recommendations for the clinical application of LTH-NIV in chronic hypercapnic COPD patients.Materials and methods: The European Respiratory Society task force committee was composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in the field of LTH-NIV. The committee developed recommendations based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. The GRADE Evidence to Decision framework was used to formulate recommendations. A number of topics were addressed under a narrative format which provides a useful context for clinicians and patients.Results: The task force committee delivered conditional recommendations for four actionable PICO (target population-intervention-comparator-outcome) questions, 1) suggesting for the use of LTH-NIV in stable hypercapnic COPD; 2) suggesting for the use of LTH-NIV in COPD patients following a COPD exacerbation requiring acute NIV 3) suggesting for the use of NIV settings targeting a reduction in carbon dioxide and 4) suggesting for using fixed pressure support as first choice ventilator mode.Conclusions: Managing hypercapnia may be an important intervention for improving the health outcome of COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure. The task force conditionally supports the application of LTH-NIV to improve health outcome by targeting a reduction in carbon dioxide in COPD patients with persistent hypercapnic respiratory failure. These recommendations should be applied in clinical practice by practitioners that routinely care for chronic hypercapnic COPD patients.

Background: The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO₂ clearance after 2 h of treatment. Methods: We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO₂ from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO₂ at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes. Results: Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO₂ reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO₂ reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO₂ reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO₂ after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) to treat acute respiratory failure has expanded tremendously over the world in terms of the spectrum of diseases that can be successfully managed, the locations of its application and achievable goals.The turning point for the successful expansion of NPPV is its ability to achieve the same physiological effects as invasive mechanical ventilation with the avoidance of the life-threatening risks correlated with the use of an artificial airway.Cardiorespiratory arrest, extreme psychomotor agitation, severe haemodynamic instability, nonhypercapnic coma and multiple organ failure are absolute contraindications for NPPV. Moreover, pitfalls of NPPV reduce its rate of success; consistently, a clear plan of what to do in case of NPPV failure should be considered, especially for patients managed in unprotected setting. NPPV failure is likely to be reduced by the application of integrated therapeutic tools in selected patients handled by expert teams.In conclusion, NPPV has to be considered as a rational art and not just as an application of science, which requires the ability of clinicians to both choose case-by-case the best “ingredients” for a “successful recipe” (i.e.patient selection, interface, ventilator, interface,etc.) and to avoid a delayed intubation if the ventilation attempt fails.

Inadequate gas conditioning during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can impair the anatomy and function of nasal mucosa. The resulting symptoms may have a negative effect on patients' adherence to ventilatory treatment, especially for chronic use. Several parameters, mostly technical aspects of NIV, contribute to inefficient gas conditioning. Factors affecting airway humidity during NIV include inspiratory flow, inspiratory oxygen fraction, leaks, type of ventilator, interface used to deliver NIV, temperature and pressure of inhaled gas, and type of humidifier. The correct application of a humidification system may avoid the effects of NIV-induced drying of the airway. This brief review analyses the consequences of airway dryness in patients receiving NIV and the technical tools necessary to guarantee adequate gas conditioning during ventilatory treatment. Open questions remain about the timing of gas conditioning for acute or chronic settings, the choice and type of humidification device, the interaction between the humidifier and the underlying disease, and the effects of individual humidification systems on delivered humidity.