Just Added!

New Videos with Amal Mattu, MD

Watch NowGo

High-Flow vs. Conventional Oxygen for Severe COVID-19

January 18, 2022

“We are all human beings.  We are more common than we are different.”
– Dr. Kimberly Brown.

Simply beautiful… Don’t miss Talking About Race in Emergency Medicine this week on the JournalFeed Podcast.

Written by Cliff Freeman

Spoon Feed
Patients suffering from severe COVID-19 who are treated with high-flow oxygen nasal cannula, compared with those treated with conventional supplemental oxygen, have decreased need for mechanical ventilation and more rapid clinical recovery.

Why does this matter?
COVID-19 appears to be here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. This means it’s time to be experts in treatment options. High-flow nasal cannula is comfortable for patients, low-risk, and provides an alternative method to deliver supplemental oxygen when compared with traditional protocols. It has become much more popular during the pandemic, and we should be familiar with evidence to support it.

High flow is the way to go
This is a randomized, open-label clinical trial performed in Emergency Departments and ICUs in which patients suffering from COVID-19 with severe features (PaO2/FIO2 < 200) were randomized to high-flow nasal cannula with heated humidified oxygen or conventional oxygen supplementation using nasal cannula or mask. Patients randomized to high-flow oxygen therapy were less likely to undergo intubation within 28 days (34.3% vs. 51% p = 0.03) and more likely to sustain clinical recovery within 28 days (77.8% vs. 71%, p = 0.047). However, there was no statistical significance in mortality between the two treatment groups.

Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Recovery in Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021 Dec 7;326(21):2161-2171. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.20714.

One thought on “High-Flow vs. Conventional Oxygen for Severe COVID-19

  • “We are all human beings. We are more common than we are different.”
    – Dr. Kimberly Brown.

    While I agree with the sentiment of this quote, might I offer a friendly critique? The second sentence could use some rewording. The primary trouble with it centers around the word “common“ in the sentence as it is currently structured.

    As for the post itself, I’m a big fan of these daily emails. I appreciate and am grateful for the work that goes into them. Thank you.

What are your thoughts?