Dataset Information

Airborne particle dispersion by high flow nasal oxygen: An experimental and CFD analysis.

ABSTRACT: High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) therapy offers a proven means of delivering respiratory support to critically ill patients suffering from viral illness such as COVID-19. However, the therapy has the potential to modify aerosol generation and dispersion patterns during exhalation and thereby put healthcare workers at increased risk of disease transmission. Fundamentally, a gap exists in the literature with regards to the effect of the therapy on the fluid dynamics of the exhalation jet which is essential in understanding the dispersion of aerosols and hence quantifying the disease transmission risk posed by the therapy. In this paper, a multi-faceted approach was taken to studying the aerosol-laden exhalation jet. Schlieren imaging was used to visualise the flow field for a range of expiratory activities for three healthy human volunteers receiving HFNO therapy at flow rates of 0-60 L/min. A RANS turbulence model was implemented using the CFD software OpenFOAM and used to perform a parametric study on the influence of exhalation velocity and duration on the dispersion patterns of non-evaporating droplets in a room environment. A dramatic increase in the turbulence of the exhalation jet was observed when HFNO was applied. Quantitative analysis indicated that the mean exhalation velocity was increased by 2.2-3.9 and 2.3-3 times that for unassisted breathing and coughing, respectively. A 1-2 second increase was found in the exhalation duration. The CFD model showed that small droplets (10-40 μm) were most greatly affected, where a 1 m/s increase in velocity and 1 s increase in duration caused an 80% increase in axial travel distance.

SUBMITTER: Crowley C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8782405 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNasal High Flow (NHF) therapy delivers flows of heated humidified gases up to 60 LPM (litres per minute) via a nasal cannula. Particles of oral/nasal fluid released by patients undergoing NHF therapy may pose a cross-infection risk, which is a potential concern for treating COVID-19 patients.MethodsLiquid particles within the exhaled breath of healthy participants were measured with two protocols: (1) high speed camera imaging and counting exhaled particles under high magnification (6 participants) and (2) measuring the deposition of a chemical marker (riboflavin-5-monophosphate) at a distance of 100 and 500 mm on filter papers through which air was drawn (10 participants). The filter papers were assayed with HPLC. Breathing conditions tested included quiet (resting) breathing and vigorous breathing (which here means nasal snorting, voluntary coughing and voluntary sneezing). Unsupported (natural) breathing and NHF at 30 and 60 LPM were compared.ResultsImaging: During quiet breathing, no particles were recorded with unsupported breathing or 30 LPM NHF (detection limit for single particles 33 μm). Particles were detected from 2 of 6 participants at 60 LPM quiet breathing at approximately 10% of the rate caused by unsupported vigorous breathing. Unsupported vigorous breathing released the greatest numbers of particles. Vigorous breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, released half the number of particles compared to vigorous breathing without NHF.Chemical marker tests: No oral/nasal fluid was detected in quiet breathing without NHF (detection limit 0.28 μL/m3). In quiet breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, small quantities were detected in 4 out of 29 quiet breathing tests, not exceeding 17 μL/m3. Vigorous breathing released 200-1000 times more fluid than the quiet breathing with NHF. The quantities detected in vigorous breathing were similar whether using NHF or not.ConclusionDuring quiet breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy may cause oral/nasal fluid to be released as particles, at levels of tens of μL per cubic metre of air. Vigorous breathing (snort, cough or sneeze) releases 200 to 1000 times more oral/nasal fluid than quiet breathing (p < 0.001 with both imaging and chemical marker methods). During vigorous breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy caused no statistically significant difference in the quantity of oral/nasal fluid released compared to unsupported breathing. NHF use does not increase the risk of dispersing infectious aerosols above the risk of unsupported vigorous breathing. Standard infection prevention and control measures should apply when dealing with a patient who has an acute respiratory infection, independent of which, if any, respiratory support is being used.Clinical trial registrationACTRN12614000924651.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) may be an attractive first-line ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients. However, HNFC use for the management of COVID-19 patients and risk factors for HFNC failure remain to be determined.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first (Mars-May 2020) and second (August 2020- February 202) French pandemic waves. Patients with limitations for intubation were excluded. HFNC failure was defined as the need for intubation after ICU admission. The impact of HFNC use was analyzed in the whole cohort and after constructing a propensity score. Risk factors for HNFC failure were identified through a landmark time-dependent cause-specific Cox model. The ability of the 6-h ROX index to detect HFNC failure was assessed by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Results200 patients were included: HFNC was used in 114(57%) patients, non-invasive ventilation in 25(12%) patients and 145(72%) patients were intubated with a median delay of 0 (0-2) days after ICU admission. Overall, 78(68%) patients had HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had a higher ICU mortality rate (34 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) than those without. At landmark time of 48 and 72 h, SAPS-2 score, extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75% and HFNC duration (cause specific hazard ratio (CSH) = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04-0.28), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 48 h and CSH = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.23), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 72 h) were associated with HFNC failure. The 6-h ROX index was lower in patients with HFNC failure but could not reliably predicted HFNC failure with an area under ROC curve of 0.65 (95% CI(0.52-0.78), p = 0.02). In the matched cohort, HFNC use was associated with a lower risk of intubation (CSH = 0.32, 95% CI (0.19-0.57), p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn critically-ill COVID-19 patients, while HFNC use as first-line ventilatory support was associated with a lower risk of intubation, more than half of patients had HFNC failure. Risk factors for HFNC failure were SAPS-2 score and extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75%. The risk of HFNC failure could not be predicted by the 6-h ROX index but decreased after a 48-h HFNC duration.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The benefits of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as primary intervention in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) are still a matter in debate. Our objective was to compare HFNC therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in the prevention of endotracheal intubation in this group of patients. METHODS:An open-label, controlled and single-centre clinical trial was conducted in patients with severe AHRF, defined by a PaO2/FIO2 ratio ?200, to compare HFNC with a control group (CG) treated by COT delivered through a face mask, with the need to perform intubation as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included tolerance of the HFNC device and to look for the predictive factors for intubation in these patients. RESULTS:A total of 46 patients were included (22 in the COT group and 24 in the HFNC group) 48% of whom needed intubation: 63% in the COT group and 33% in the HFNC group, with significant differences both in intention to treat [?2?=?4.2; p?=?0.04, relative risk (RR)?=?0.5; confidence interval (CI) 95%: 0.3-1.0] and also in treatment analysis (?2?=?4.7; p?=?0.03; RR?=?0.5; IC 95%: 0.3-0.9) We obtained a number needed to treat (NNT)?=?3 patients treated to avoid an intubation. Intubation occurred significantly later in the HFNC group. Estimated PaO2/FIO2, respiratory rate and dyspnea were significantly better in the HFNC group. Patients treated with HFNC who required intubation presented significant worsening after the first 8?h, as compared with non-intubated HFNC group patients. Mortality was 22% with no differences. The HFNC group patients were hospitalized for almost half of the time in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the ward, with significantly less hospital length of stay. A total of 14 patients in the HFNC group (58%) complained of excessive heat and 17% of noise; 3 patients did not tolerate HFNC. CONCLUSION:Patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure who tolerate HFNC present a significantly lower need for endotracheal intubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER:EUDRA CT number: 2012-001671-36The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Dataset Information

Airborne particle dispersion by high flow nasal oxygen: An experimental and CFD analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets