Effect of High Flow Nasal Cannula versus Non-invasive ventilation on critically ill patient Outcomes: Comparative study | ||
| Egyptian Journal of Health Care | ||
| Volume 15, Issue 1, March 2024, Pages 2283-2298 PDF (258.89 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejhc.2025.401697 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Eman Mamdouh Aziz Soliman1; Sanaa saber Mohamed2; Fayza Ahmed Abdou Mohammed3; Naglaa Ahmed Ahmed4 | ||
| 1Lecturer of critical care and Emergency nursing - Faculty of nursing- Assiut University | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of Critical Care and Emergency Nursing -Faculty of nursing-Sohag University | ||
| 3Assistant Professor of Critical Care and Emergency Nursing -Faculty of nursing-Assiut University | ||
| 4Assistant Professor of Critical Care and Emergency nursing -Faculty of nursing- Assiut University | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: High Flow Nasal Cannula appears to be a promising alternative to standard oxygen and non-invasive ventilation for treating patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation on critically ill patient outcomes. Research hypotheses: high-flow nasal cannula is expected to be more effective than non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure in reducing the length of stay, mortality rate, and post-extubation complications. A comparative, Descriptive research design was used. The study was conducted in ICUs of the anesthesia department at Assuit Main University Hospital. A purposive sample of 60 adult male and female patients who were aged (18-60 years) was included in the study and they were assigned into two groups (HFNC and NIV). Five tools were used to gather data, I: Patient assessment sheet, II: Glasgow coma scale (GCS), III: Dyspnea Visual Analogue Scale (D-VAS), IV: Device-related discomfort visual analogue scale and V: Clinical outcomes assessment sheet. Results: revealed that half of the patients in both the HFN and NIV (CPAP) groups stayed in the hospital for 6-10 days. Regarding patient progress, there is a statistically significant difference between both groups, with patients using the HFN protocol showing greater improvement than patients using the CPAP protocol. Conclusion: The patient in HFN protocol shows improvement in the level of progress than NIV (CPAP). Recommendations: High-Flow Nasal Cannula may serve as an alternative treatment for hypercapnic respiratory failure, particularly for patients who do not tolerate Non-Invasive Ventilation well. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| High Flow Nasal Cannula; Non-invasive ventilation; patient Outcomes | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 293 PDF Download: 187 |
||
