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.

Introduction: Continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are accepted treatments in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). However, it remains unclear whether NPPV is better than CPAP in reducing the need for endotracheal intubation (NETI) rates, mortality and other adverse events. Our aim was to review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of these two methods in ACPE management. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of CPAP and/or NIPV in the treatment of ACPE, considering the outcomes NETI, mortality and incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We searched six electronic databases up to May 2005 without language restrictions, reviewed references of relevant articles, hand searched conference proceedings and contacted experts. Results: Of 790 articles identified, 17 were included. In a pooled analysis, 10 studies of CPAP compared to standard medical therapy (SMT) showed a significant 22% absolute risk reduction (ARR) in NETI (95% confidence interval (CI), -34% to -10%) and 13% in mortality (95%CI, -22% to -5%). Six studies of NPPV compared to SMT showed an 18% ARR in NETI (95%CI, -32% to -4%) and 7% in mortality (95%CI, -14% to 0%). Seven studies of NPPV compared to CPAP showed a non-significant 3% ARR in NETI (95%CI, -4% to 9%) and 2% in mortality (95%CI, -6% to 10%). None of these methods increased AMI risk. In a subgroup analysis, NPPV did not lead to better outcomes than CPAP in studies including more hypercapnic patients. Conclusion: Robust evidence now supports the use of CPAP and NPPV in ACPE. Both techniques decrease NETI and mortality compared to SMT and none shows increased AMI risk. CPAP should be considered a first line intervention as NPPV did not show a better efficacy, even in patients with more severe conditions, and CPAP is cheaper and easier to implement in clinical practice.

The war against Covid-19 is far from won. This narrative review attempts to describe some problems with the management of Covid-19 induced acute respiratory failure (ARF) by pulmonologists. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and reviewed the references of retrieved articles for additional studies. The search was limited to the terms: Covid-19 AND: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), SARS, MERS, non invasive ventilation (NIV), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), pronation (PP), health care workers (HCW). Protection of Health care workers should be paramount, so full Personal Protective Equipment and Negative pressure rooms are warranted. HFNC alone or with PP could be offered for mild cases (PaO2/FiO2 between 200-300); NIV alone or with PP may work in moderate cases (PaO2/FiO2 between 100-200). Rotation and coupled (HFNC/NIV) strategy can be beneficial. A window of opportunity of 1-2h is advised. If PaO2/FIO2 significantly increases, Respiratory Rate decreases with a relatively low Exhaled Tidal Volume, the non-invasive strategy could be working and intubation delayed. Although there is a role for non-invasive respiratory therapies in the context of COVID-19 ARF, more research is still needed to define the balance of benefits and risks to patients and HCW. Indirectly, non invasive respiratory therapies may be of particular benefit in reducing the risks to healthcare workers by obviating the need for intubation, a potentially highly infectious procedure.

Introduction: Weaning protocols that include noninvasive ventilation (NIV) decrease re-intubation rates and ICU length of stay. However, impaired airway clearance is associated with NIV failure. Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) has been proven to be very effective in patients receiving NIV. We aimed to assess the efficacy of MI-E as part of an extubation protocol. Method: Patients with mechanical ventilation (MV) for more than 48 hours with specific inclusion criteria, who successfully tolerated a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), were randomly allocated before extubation, either for (A) a conventional extubation protocol (control group), or (B) the MI-E extubation protocol (study group). During the postextubation period (48 hours), group A patients received standard medical treatment (SMT), including NIV in case of specific indications, whereas group B received the same postextubation approach plus three daily sessions of mechanical in-exsufflation (MI-E). Reintubation rates, ICU length of stay, and NIV failure rates were analyzed. Results: Seventy-five patients (26 women) with a mean age of 61.8 ± 17.3 years were randomized to a control group (n = 40; mean SAPS II, 47.8 ± 17.7) and to a study group (n = 35; mean SAPS II, 45.0 ± 15.0). MV time before enrollment was 9.4 ± 4.8 and 10.5 ± 4.1 days for the control and the study group, respectively. In the 48 hours after extubation, 20 control patients (50%) and 14 study patients (40%) used NIV. Study group patients had a significant lower reintubation rate than did controls; six patients (17%) versus 19 patients (48%), P < 0.05; respectively, and a significantly lower time under MV; 17.8 ± 6.4 versus 11.7 ± 3.5 days; P < 0.05; respectively. Considering only the subgroup of patients that used NIV, the reintubation rates related to NIV failure were significantly lower in the study group when compared with controls; two patients (6%) versus 13 (33%); P < 0.05, respectively. Mean ICU length of stay after extubation was significantly lower in the study group when compared with controls (3.1 ± 2.5 versus 9.8 ± 6.7 days; P < 0.05). No differences were found in the total ICU length of stay. Conclusion: Inclusion of MI-E may reduce reintubation rates with consequent reduction in postextubation ICU length of stay. This technique seems to be efficient in improving the efficacy of NIV in this patient population.