Effectiveness and Safety of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Delivery during Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Acute Respiratory Failure Patients.
- Author:
Eun Jin KIM
1
;
Chi Young JUNG
;
Kyung Chan KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Bronchoalveolar Lavage; Bronchoscopy; Nasal Cannula; Oxygen; Respiratory Failure
- MeSH: Anoxia; Bronchoalveolar Lavage*; Bronchoscopy; Catheters*; Diagnosis; Fever; Humans; Hypotension; Intubation, Intratracheal; Lung Diseases; Oxygen*; Partial Pressure; Respiratory Insufficiency*; Retrospective Studies
- From:Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2018;81(4):319-329
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a necessary procedure for diagnosis of various lung diseases. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery was recently introduced. This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of HFNC oxygen supply during BAL procedure in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: Patients who underwent BAL while using HFNC at a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2; PF) ratio of 300 or below among patients who had been admitted from March 2013 to May 2017 were retrospectively investigated. RESULTS: Thirty-three BAL procedures were confirmed. Their baseline PF ratio was 166.1±46.7. FiO2 values before, during, and after BAL were 0.45±0.12, 0.74±0.19, and 0.57±0.14, respectively. Flow (L/min) values before, during, and after BAL were 26.5±20.3, 49.0±7.2, and 40.8±14.2, respectively. Both FiO2 and flow during and after the procedure were significantly different from those before the procedure (both p < 0.001). Oxygen saturation levels before, during, and after BAL measured by pulse oximeter were 94.8±2.9, 94.6±3.5, and 95.2±2.8%, respectively. There were no significant differences in oxygen saturation among the three groups. Complications of BAL procedure included transient hypoxemia, hypotension, and fever. However, there was no endotracheal intubation within 24 hours. Baseline PF ratio in “without HFNC” group was significantly higher than that in “with HFNC” group. There were no differences in complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The use of HFNC during BAL procedure in ARF patients was effective and safe. However, there were no significant differences in oxygen saturation level and complications comparing “without HFNC” group in mild ARF. More studies are needed for moderate to severe ARF patients.
