{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["60(6)"],"submitter":["Koyauchi T"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Background</h4>Despite the rapid widespread use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, its indications and appropriate use as perceived by physicians remain poorly known.<h4>Methods</h4>In September 2021, we sent a questionnaire to each respiratory physician from 15 institutions in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In this survey, we compared the perceptions of HFNC indications and interventions during implementation to those of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Furthermore, this study examined concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress experienced among respondents.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 140 respiratory physicians contacted, 87 (62.1%) completed the survey. The results indicate that 96.5% of the respondents agreed with the indication of HFNC for COVID-19, whereas only 13.7% agreed with NIV. The physicians reported that patients with HFNC had a lower frequency of sustained sedation, physical restraint, and implementation in the ICU than that of patients with NIV and IMV. The HFNC was introduced as a respiratory modality following conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with COVID-19, regardless of full or do-not-intubate codes. Additionally, they reported that patients with COVID-19 switched from COT to HFNC significantly earlier than those without COVID-19. Simultaneously, this survey revealed persistent concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress (47.1% and 53.3%, respectively) among respiratory physicians during HFNC use.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Clinically, HFNC is considered useful for COVID-19 patients by most respiratory physicians. However, HFNC remains a concern for COVID-19 spread and psychological distress among several respiratory physicians, indicating the need for urgent action."],"journal":["Respiratory investigation"],"pagination":["779-786"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9464591"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"pubmed_title":["Clinical practice of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19 pandemic era: a cross-sectional survey of respiratory physicians."],"pmcid":["PMC9464591"],"pubmed_authors":["Inui N","Suda T","Furuhashi K","Karayama M","Suzuki Y","Fujisawa T","Enomoto N","Koyauchi T","Inoue Y","Hozumi H"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Clinical practice of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19 pandemic era: a cross-sectional survey of respiratory physicians.","description":"<h4>Background</h4>Despite the rapid widespread use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, its indications and appropriate use as perceived by physicians remain poorly known.<h4>Methods</h4>In September 2021, we sent a questionnaire to each respiratory physician from 15 institutions in Shizuoka prefecture, Japan. In this survey, we compared the perceptions of HFNC indications and interventions during implementation to those of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Furthermore, this study examined concerns about SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress experienced among respondents.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 140 respiratory physicians contacted, 87 (62.1%) completed the survey. The results indicate that 96.5% of the respondents agreed with the indication of HFNC for COVID-19, whereas only 13.7% agreed with NIV. The physicians reported that patients with HFNC had a lower frequency of sustained sedation, physical restraint, and implementation in the ICU than that of patients with NIV and IMV. The HFNC was introduced as a respiratory modality following conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with COVID-19, regardless of full or do-not-intubate codes. Additionally, they reported that patients with COVID-19 switched from COT to HFNC significantly earlier than those without COVID-19. Simultaneously, this survey revealed persistent concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection spread and psychological distress (47.1% and 53.3%, respectively) among respiratory physicians during HFNC use.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Clinically, HFNC is considered useful for COVID-19 patients by most respiratory physicians. However, HFNC remains a concern for COVID-19 spread and psychological distress among several respiratory physicians, indicating the need for urgent action.","dates":{"release":"2022-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2022 Nov","modification":"2025-04-21T23:34:44.725Z","creation":"2025-02-18T23:58:19.576Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC9464591","cross_references":{"pubmed":["36153288"],"doi":["10.1016/j.resinv.2022.08.007"]}}