|
| Author (year) | Study type | No. of patients/subjects | High flows administered | Variables measured | Results | Statistically significant variables |
|
| Corley et al. (2017) | Randomised crossover study (HFT vs TPiece) | 20 | 50 L/min | EELV, TV, paw (mean), SpO2/FiO2, EtCO2, RR, HR, dyspnoea score | Mean airway pressures 0.7 cmH2O; mean difference between HFT and T Piece | SpO2/FiO2, Mean Airway Pressure |
|
| Natalini et al. (2019) | Single centre randomised crossover study (HFT vs standard oxygen) | 26 | 10 L/min, 30 L/min, 50 L/min | ABG/ RR / peak and mean expiratory pressure | Peak expiratory pressures 1.8 cmH2O (1.4–2.2 cmH2O) with 50 L/min vs. 1.3 cmH2O (0.9–2 cmH2O) with standard oxygen, p=0.001
Mean expiratory pressure 1.2 cmH2O (1–1.5 cmH2O) with 50 L/min vs. 0.8 cmH2O (0.5–1.3 cmH2O) with standard oxygen, p<0.001 | PaO2/FiO2, RR, peak and mean expiratory pressures |
|
| Stripoli et al. (2019) | Single centre unblinded crossover study (HF1/oxygen/HF2) | 14 | 50 L/min | ABG/RR/EAdi/Pmusc/ work of breathing | No airway pressure was monitored | None |
|
| Chen et al. (2019) | Animal randomised crossover study/bench experiment (TPiece/HFT/modified HFT) | 6 | 40 L/min for animal study, 10 L/min–60 L/min for bench study | ABG/RR/paw/PEEP/PTP/resistance | Animal study bench experiment
1± 0.3 cmH2O (mean paw) 40 L/min
1.2 ± 0.3 cmH2O (mean paw) 50 L/min
1.5 ± 0.3 cmH2O (mean paw) 60L /min | Paw, resistance, EELV, PaO2/FiO2 |
|
| Moorhouse et al. (2015) | Benchtop experiment | 468 Recordings | 5 L/min to 30 L/min in increments of 5 L/min | Airway pressure and resistance to flow | 0.15 cmH2O for 10 L/min (paw)
0.47 cmH2O for 20 L/min (paw)
0.94 cmH2O for 30 L/min (paw) | Resistance and pressure |
|
| Mitaka et al. (2018) | Case report | 2 | 40 L/min | Airway pressure | Case 2
0.21–0.3 cmH2O for 10 L/min (paw)
0.21–0.56 cmH2O for 20 L/min (paw)
0.54–0.91 cmH2O for 30 L/min (paw)
0.76–2.01 cmH2O for 40 L/min (paw)
1.17–2.01 cmH2O for 50 L/min (paw)
1.76–2.01 cmH2O for 60 L/min (paw) | NA |
|
