High Flow Nasal Oxygenation Versus Non-invasive Ventilation for Patients With Blunt Chest Trauma

In the past years, High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) has gained an important popularity among intensivest to manage patients with acute respiratory failure, filling a gap in the ventilatory support escalation between facemask oxygen and non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. Interestingly, the use of HFNC was widely and rapidly adopted in ICUs.A unique feature of HFNC is its ability to comfortably deliver high flows of warmed humidified gas, 20-70 L min, with a FiO2 range of 0.21-1.0. Physiological responses to HFNC therapy include increases in airway pressure, end-expiratory lung volume (EELV), and oxygenation which are probably optimal with higher flows (60-70 L/min), while the effects on dead-space washout work of breathing, and respiratory rate may be obtained with intermediate flows (20-45 L/min). Many studies have found that high flow nasal oxygen is much better tolerated by patients compared to non-invasive ventilation, which may improve compliance. Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on the treatment outcomes (such as intubation rate, escalated respiratory support rate, and mortality) of high flow nasal oxygenation versus non-invasive ventilation for patients with traumatic chest injuries.