Domiciliary NHF and patient outcomes in CHRF in the UK
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Does domiciliary Nasal High Flow (NHF) therapy improve patient outcomes in Chronic Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure (CHRF) in the UK?: A pre and post interventional study
IRAS ID
307348
Contact name
Swapna Mandal
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 0 months, 1 days
Research summary
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or OHS (obesity hypoventilation syndrome) can often have disabling breathlessness that limits their day to day activities. They are also at increased risk of hospital visits when they are unwell due to low oxygen levels and high toxic gases such as carbon dioxide in their blood. All of this combined together can reduce their overall quality of life. Studies have shown that a treatment called Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) can improve the outcomes for patients suffering with chronic lung disease as a result of either COPD or obesity hypoventilation.
NIV currently involves breathing through a tight fitting mask connected to a machine. This equipment acts as a home ventilator for patients but can be uncomfortable to use and means that patients struggle to use it on a daily basis. This may affect the health benefits that patients would gain if they cannot use it for the recommended time needed. Some patients may not use this treatment at all, as it is so uncomfortable for them and there are no currently no available other treatments similar to this.
We therefore wish to explore how acceptable and practical it is to use an alternative therapy called Nasal High Flow therapy (NHF) in this group of patients unable to use a home ventilator. NHF is a nasal cannula which sits just under the nostrils instead and delivers warmed, humidified, high air flow and may offer increased comfort to these patients.
We wish to explore patients experience with NHF, to examine the effects it has on the breathing system and whether it improves breathlessness, quality of life and reduces healthcare visits. This may allow us to better predict and advise patients on treatment options in the future and we hope this information can be used to improve patient care.
REC name
London - Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
21/LO/0888
Date of REC Opinion
11 Jan 2022
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion