A mixed-methods pilot study of domiciliary nasal high-flow therapy for breathlessness in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who do not qualify for domiciliary long-term oxygen therapy

被引：0
作者：
Smallwood, Natasha [1 ,2 ]
Pascoe, Amy [2 ]
Buchan, Catherine [2 ]
Wong, Aaron K. [3 ,4 ]
Currow, David [6 ]
Le, Brian [3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构：
[1] Alfred Hosp, Dept Resp & Sleep Med, Prahran, Vic, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Sch Translat Med, Resp Res Alfred, Level 6 Alfred Ctr 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[3] Peter MacCallum Canc Ctr, Palliat Med, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[4] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Palliat Med, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[5] Univ Melbourne, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Wollongong, Fac Sci Med & Hlth, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
来源：
THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN RESPIRATORY DISEASE | 2025年 / 19卷
关键词：
breathlessness; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; nasal high-flow therapy; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; ADVANCED CANCER; DYSPNEA; INDEX; COPD; ILLNESS; BURDEN; RELIEF; ADULTS; AIR;
D O I：
10.1177/17534666251314722
中图分类号：
R56 [呼吸系及胸部疾病];
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy delivers humidified, heated air with flow rates of up to 60 L/min with oxygen entrained. HFNO has advantages over conventional oxygen therapy, including precise and reliable fraction of inspired oxygen delivery, therefore is recommended as first-line treatment for people with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.Objectives: This pilot study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of domiciliary nasal high flow (NHF) without entrained oxygen for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and severe breathlessness.Design: Single-arm, mixed-methods, pilot study of an 8-day, air-only NHF intervention in adults with COPD and severe breathlessness not requiring domiciliary oxygen therapy.Methods: Participants were educated and advised to use NHF for >= 7 h per night for 7 nights with day use as desired. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed on Days 3, 5 and 8. Primary outcome: feasibility. Secondary outcomes: breathlessness (dyspnoea), fatigue, quality of life, physical function, sleep, tolerability and safety. Acceptability was also assessed through semi-structured interviews.Results: Fifteen participants were enrolled (mean age 73.6; 40% women; mean FEV1 41% predicted, mean DLCO 43.0% predicted; mean modified Medical Research Council score 3.7). Thirteen (87%) completed the trial, with 8 (54%) keeping the device at the end of the trial and 3 (20%) continuing use long-term. Adherence varied, with average daily usage higher amongst participants who kept the device compared to those who returned it (6.8 h +/- 2.3 h vs 3.4 h +/- 3.7 h). No changes in worst breathlessness (mean = 0.7, SD = 1.2, p = 0.109), dyspnoea mastery (mean = 0.3, SD = 0.6, p = 0.176) or fatigue (mean = 0.0, SD = 2.4, p = 1.00) were observed at Day 8 compared to baseline. No significant adverse events were reported. Qualitative interviews demonstrated subjective improvements in breathlessness, dry mouth and sputum production for some participants, whilst others found NHF uncomfortable. Fear of NHF dependence and concerns regarding long-term running costs were reported.Conclusion: Domiciliary NHF was a feasible intervention, albeit with varied adoption and acceptability. These trial implementation outcomes may have affected preliminary effectiveness outcomes. Further research is required to determine what role domiciliary NHF may have for people with COPD and severe breathlessness.Trial registration: ACTRN12621000044820.
引用
收藏
页数：15
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [31] Storgaard L.H., Hockey H.U., Laursen B.S., Et al., Long-term effects of oxygen-enriched high-flow nasal cannula treatment in COPD patients with chronic hypoxemic respiratory failure, Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis, 13, pp. 1195-1205, (2018)
  • [32] Bianquis C., Rolland-Debord C., Rivals I., Et al., Dyspnoea relief as an inherent benefit of high flow nasal cannula therapy: a laboratory randomized trial in healthy humans, Respirology, 29, pp. 46-55, (2024)
  • [33] Shahsavari H., Matourypour P., Ghiyasvandian S., Et al., Medical Research Council framework for development and evaluation of complex interventions: a comprehensive guidance, J Educ Health Promot, 9, (2020)
  • [34] Moher D., Hopewell S., Schulz K.F., Et al., CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials, BMJ, 340, (2010)
  • [35] Schunemann H.J., Griffith L., Jaeschke R., Et al., A comparison of the original chronic respiratory questionnaire with a standardized version, Chest, 124, pp. 1421-1429, (2003)
  • [36] Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration Clinical Manual, (2021)
  • [37] Abernethy A.P., Shelby-James T., Fazekas B.S., Et al., The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481], BMC Palliat Care, 4, (2005)
  • [38] Buysse D.J., Reynolds C.F., Monk T.H., Et al., The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research, Psychiatry Res, 28, pp. 193-213, (1989)
  • [39] Braun V., Clarke V., Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual Res Psychol, 3, pp. 77-101, (2006)
  • [40] Johnson M.J., Bland J.M., Oxberry S.G., Et al., Clinically important differences in the intensity of chronic refractory breathlessness, J Pain Symptom Manage, 46, pp. 957-963, (2013)
12345