High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation: a physiological crossover trial
Abstract
Background Evidence comparing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure remains controversial. We compared their short-term effects on breathing effort, ventilation, CO 2 clearance, and preference. Methods A randomized, crossover, non-inferiority trial was conducted in patients with stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation requiring NIV or HFNC. Baseline oxygen therapy was followed by a randomized sequence of NIV and HFNC at 30 and 50 L.min −1 . The primary endpoint was to assess non-inferiority of HFNC 50 L..min −1 compared to NIV. Diaphragm, parasternal intercostal, and transversus abdominis muscle activity were assessed using thickening fraction (TF) and the product of TF and respiratory rate (TF•RR). Ventilation was evaluated using electrical impedance tomography and transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide (tcCO 2 ). Results 21 patients (mean ± SD age 69 ± 11 years, 82% COPD) were enrolled. In 17, diaphragm thickening fraction (TFdi) was available: HFNC 50 L..min -1 was non-inferior to NIV in reducing TFdi (p = 0.122, 95% CI: −19.1 – 3.4), as was HFNC at 30 L.min −1 (p = 0.413, 95% CI: −17.0 – 5.7). Only HFNC 50 L..min -1 reduced TFdi•RR (p = 0.036) and respiratory rate compared to baseline (p = 0.001). HFNC at 50 L.min -1 decreased the baseline TFdi by 18% ± 36% (p = 0.033), whereas NIV did not decrease it. HFNC and NIV reduced tcCO₂ compared to baseline. Minute ventilation and the estimated ventilatory ratio were lower with HFNC than NIV (p < 0.01). HFNC was the preferred strategy by the patients. Conclusions In stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation, HFNC and NIV reduced tcCO₂, but only HFNC lowered ventilatory ratio and minute ventilation. HFNC at 50 L.min −1 reduced diaphragm activity and was non-inferior to NIV in this regard, while being preferred by patients.
Related
- Variations in long-term home noninvasive ventilation practices for COPD across Europe: a clinician survey
- Discomfort of noninvasive ventilation, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, and conventional oxygen implemented after extubation in non-COPD patients
- Management of Hypercapnic Acute Respiratory Failure with High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy: A Narrative Review
- Genome-Wide Transcriptomics Uncovers a Lung-to-Aorta Inflammatory Program Driving Influenza-Induced Atherosclerosis Exacerbation
- Distribution of ABCB1 Genetic Variants and their Association with Moxifloxacin Pharmacokinetics in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD
BibTeX
@article{vieira2026highflow,
title = {{High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation: a physiological crossover trial}},
author = {Fernando Vieira and Annia Schreiber and Mattia Docci and Antenor Rodrigues and Vorakamol Phoophiboon and Carles Subira and Matthew Ko and Mayson L.A. Sousa and Tai Pham and Thomas Piraino and Remi Coudroy and Giulia Cavalot and Irene Telias and Detajin Junhasavasdikul and Martin Dres and Michael C. Sklar and Laurent Brochard},
journal = {Annals of Intensive Care},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1016/j.aicoj.2026.100092},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05849843v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation: a physiological crossover trial
AU - Fernando Vieira
AU - Annia Schreiber
AU - Mattia Docci
AU - Antenor Rodrigues
AU - Vorakamol Phoophiboon
AU - Carles Subira
AU - Matthew Ko
AU - Mayson L.A. Sousa
AU - Tai Pham
AU - Thomas Piraino
AU - Remi Coudroy
AU - Giulia Cavalot
AU - Irene Telias
AU - Detajin Junhasavasdikul
AU - Martin Dres
AU - Michael C. Sklar
AU - Laurent Brochard
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Annals of Intensive Care
DO - 10.1016/j.aicoj.2026.100092
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05849843v1
AB - Background Evidence comparing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure remains controversial. We compared their short-term effects on breathing effort, ventilation, CO 2 clearance, and preference. Methods A randomized, crossover, non-inferiority trial was conducted in patients with stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation requiring NIV or HFNC. Baseline oxygen therapy was followed by a randomized sequence of NIV and HFNC at 30 and 50 L.min −1 . The primary endpoint was to assess non-inferiority of HFNC 50 L..min −1 compared to NIV. Diaphragm, parasternal intercostal, and transversus abdominis muscle activity were assessed using thickening fraction (TF) and the product of TF and respiratory rate (TF•RR). Ventilation was evaluated using electrical impedance tomography and transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide (tcCO 2 ). Results 21 patients (mean ± SD age 69 ± 11 years, 82% COPD) were enrolled. In 17, diaphragm thickening fraction (TFdi) was available: HFNC 50 L..min -1 was non-inferior to NIV in reducing TFdi (p = 0.122, 95% CI: −19.1 – 3.4), as was HFNC at 30 L.min −1 (p = 0.413, 95% CI: −17.0 – 5.7). Only HFNC 50 L..min -1 reduced TFdi•RR (p = 0.036) and respiratory rate compared to baseline (p = 0.001). HFNC at 50 L.min -1 decreased the baseline TFdi by 18% ± 36% (p = 0.033), whereas NIV did not decrease it. HFNC and NIV reduced tcCO₂ compared to baseline. Minute ventilation and the estimated ventilatory ratio were lower with HFNC than NIV (p < 0.01). HFNC was the preferred strategy by the patients. Conclusions In stabilized hypercapnic exacerbation, HFNC and NIV reduced tcCO₂, but only HFNC lowered ventilatory ratio and minute ventilation. HFNC at 50 L.min −1 reduced diaphragm activity and was non-inferior to NIV in this regard, while being preferred by patients.
SN - 2110-5820
ER -