Acute hypercapnic respiratory failure is a life-threatening condition caused by alveolar hypoventilation. It is mostly caused by an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or conditions yielding muscle dysfunction. Noninvasive ventilation through a facemask is the cornerstone first-line strategy to support hypercapnic patients with acidemia, and current guidelines strongly recommend this intervention to improve survival and long-term clinical outcomes. Because of its benefits related to carbon dioxide washout from the upper airways and the enhanced comfort, high-flow nasal oxygen has been proposed as a respiratory support strategy in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure, both as an alternative to and in combination with noninvasive ventilation. When compared to noninvasive ventilation as a first-line intervention, high-flow nasal oxygen shows a higher rate of failure. Hence, if not contraindicated, the use of noninvasive ventilation should be preferred. After the resolution of acidemia with noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen showed promising physiological effects compared to conventional oxygen. During weaning from mechanical ventilation in patients with or at risk of developing hypercapnia, high-flow nasal oxygen showed encouraging results, especially when applied alternating with sessions of noninvasive ventilation. Optimal settings of high-flow nasal oxygen in hypercapnic patients include the use of a smaller-size cannula, flows ranging between 30 and 40 L/min, and FiO₂ adjusted to obtain SpO₂ between 88% and 92%. Specific interfaces, such as asymmetric cannulas, may further enhance the benefits of a high flow in terms of carbon dioxide clearance. In this narrative review, we provide an updated overview of the physiological rationale and clinical evidence concerning the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.

Expiratory muscle activity raises end-expiratory pleural pressure and may oppose the effects of PEEP. Whether the regional response to PEEP differs between