ERJ open research · 2025
Physiological effects of high-flow nasal cannula during sustained high-intensity exercise in healthy volunteers: a randomised crossover trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moya-Gallardo Eduardo, Garcia-Valdés Patricio, Marambio-Coloma Consuelo, Gutierrez-Escobar Constanza, Hernández-Vargas Betsabeth, Muñoz-Castro Carolina, Riquelme-Sánchez Santiago, Moo-Millan Joel, Basoalto Roque, Bruhn Alejandro, Diaz Orlando, Damiani L Felipe
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has increased exercise capacity in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. However, it remains unknown whether HFNC impacts respiratory physiological variables during exercise. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of HFNC on respiratory physiological variables during sustained high-intensity exercise in healthy volunteers.
METHODS: We performed a single-centre, open-label, randomised crossover trial to compare HFNC (60 L·min-1) and Sham-HFNC (2 L·min-1) interventions during a constant work rate exercise (CWRET) through randomised order. The primary outcome was change in oesophageal pressure (ΔP oes), and the secondary outcomes were other variables of inspiratory effort, ventilation distribution, ventilatory variables and clinical assessment. We evaluated volunteers at seven time points (baseline=T0; CWRET=T1-T2-T3 (1, 4 and 6 min); cooldown period=T4-T5-T6 (1, 6 and 10 min)) in both interventions.
RESULTS: 14 healthy volunteers (50% women; age: 22 (21-27) years) were enrolled. Mean differences in ΔP oes decreased to favour the HFNC intervention compared to Sham-HFNC at T2 (-2.8 cmH2O; 95% CI -5.3 to -0.3), as well as the simplified oesophageal pressure-time product (sPTP) per minute at T2 (-86.1 cmH2O·s·min-1; 95% CI -146.2 to -26.1) and T3 (-79.9 cmH2O·s·min-1; 95% CI -142.3 to -17.6). The standard deviation of the Regional Ventilation Delay index was also lower with HFNC compared to Sham-HFNC (T1: -1.38; 95% CI -1.93 to -0.83; T2: -0.71; 95% CI -1.27 to -0.16). There was decreased dyspnoea to favour the HFNC, but sPTP per breath, spatial distribution ventilation indexes, ventilatory variables and clinical assessments were nonsignificant between interventions.
CONCLUSION: HFNC intervention reduces respiratory effort and dyspnoea and improves temporal ventilation distribution in healthy volunteers during CWRET.
METHODS: We performed a single-centre, open-label, randomised crossover trial to compare HFNC (60 L·min-1) and Sham-HFNC (2 L·min-1) interventions during a constant work rate exercise (CWRET) through randomised order. The primary outcome was change in oesophageal pressure (ΔP oes), and the secondary outcomes were other variables of inspiratory effort, ventilation distribution, ventilatory variables and clinical assessment. We evaluated volunteers at seven time points (baseline=T0; CWRET=T1-T2-T3 (1, 4 and 6 min); cooldown period=T4-T5-T6 (1, 6 and 10 min)) in both interventions.
RESULTS: 14 healthy volunteers (50% women; age: 22 (21-27) years) were enrolled. Mean differences in ΔP oes decreased to favour the HFNC intervention compared to Sham-HFNC at T2 (-2.8 cmH2O; 95% CI -5.3 to -0.3), as well as the simplified oesophageal pressure-time product (sPTP) per minute at T2 (-86.1 cmH2O·s·min-1; 95% CI -146.2 to -26.1) and T3 (-79.9 cmH2O·s·min-1; 95% CI -142.3 to -17.6). The standard deviation of the Regional Ventilation Delay index was also lower with HFNC compared to Sham-HFNC (T1: -1.38; 95% CI -1.93 to -0.83; T2: -0.71; 95% CI -1.27 to -0.16). There was decreased dyspnoea to favour the HFNC, but sPTP per breath, spatial distribution ventilation indexes, ventilatory variables and clinical assessments were nonsignificant between interventions.
CONCLUSION: HFNC intervention reduces respiratory effort and dyspnoea and improves temporal ventilation distribution in healthy volunteers during CWRET.