Search In this Thesis
   Search In this Thesis  
العنوان
High Velocity Nasal Insufflation Versus NonInvasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure :
المؤلف
Gasad, Heba Ragab .
هيئة الاعداد
باحث / هبه رجب عطا جسد
مشرف / امل امين عبد العزيز
مشرف / جيهان على عبد العال
مشرف / بيشىي برزي تاوضروس
الموضوع
Chest Diseases. Respiratory insufficiency.
تاريخ النشر
2023.
عدد الصفحات
133 p. :
اللغة
الإنجليزية
الدرجة
ماجستير
التخصص
الطب الرئوي والالتهاب الرئوى
تاريخ الإجازة
1/4/2023
مكان الإجازة
جامعة المنوفية - كلية الطب - أمراض الصدر والتدرن
الفهرس
Only 14 pages are availabe for public view

from 143

from 143

Abstract

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has become the favoured primary method for respiratory support because it provides sufficient alveolar ventilation. NIV is not always appropriate due to low mask tolerance (1, 2). In order to treat respiratory failure, thermo-humidified nasal high flow (NHF) oxygen therapy is being used more and more. The use of this therapy as an alternative non-invasive respiratory support in various clinical settings has recently gained attention. High velocity nasal insufflation, a type of high-flow nasal cannula, is dependent upon maximum dead-space clearance and enhance ventilation (the wash of CO2 from the space between breaths).This is achieved by using a small-bore nasal cannula for adult patients with an internal diameter of 2.7 mm to create a high velocity flow that is roughly 360% higher than that of the larger bore cannula. Additionally, it provides other benefits of high-flow nasal cannula. According to clinical practice, high velocity nasal insufflation usually needs a flow of 25–35 L/min to completely clear the dead space between breaths in adult (12).
The aim of the study was to assess the role of high velocity nasal insufflation (HVNI) versus non- invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute respiratory failure.
This was a prospective study that involved 60 patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the Chest Department at Menoufia University Hospital during the period from June to December 2022. The patients were categorized randomly into two groups according to the first line of ventilatory support used. The first group included 30 patients where HVNI was used, while the second group included 30 patients where NIV was used. Each group was then divided into two subgroups according to the type of respiratory failure (type I and type II respiratory failure groups). The type I respiratory failure group consisted of 32 patients. The type II RF group consisted of 28 patients.