English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objectives  This study evaluates aerosol production with high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) compared to 6 L/min by low‐flow nasal cannula.    Methods  Two healthy volunteers were randomized to control (6 L/min by low‐flow nasal cannula), NIPPV, or HFNC using block randomization. NIPPV conditions were studied using continuous positive airway pressures of 5, 10, and 15 cm H 2 O with an FiO 2  of 1.0 delivered via full‐face mask. HFNC conditions included flow rates of 30 and 40 L/min with an FiO 2  of 1.0 with and without coughing. HFNC and low‐flow nasal cannula conditions were repeated with and without participants wearing a surgical mask. Six aerosol sizes (0.3, 1.0, 2.5, 5, and 10 µm) and total aerosol mass were measured at 2 and 6 ft from the participant's nasopharynx.    Results  There was no significant difference in aerosol production between either HFNC or NIPPV and control. There was also no significant difference with the use of a procedural mask over the HFNC. There was significant variation between the 2 participants, but in neither case was there a difference compared to control. There was an aerosol‐time trend, but there does not appear to be a difference between either flow rate, pressure, or control. Furthermore, there was no accumulation of total aerosol particles over the total duration of the experiment in both HFNC and NIPPV conditions.    Conclusions  HFNC and NIPPV did not increase aerosol production compared to 6 L/min by low‐flow nasal cannula in this experiment involving healthy volunteers.

Aerosol risk with noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID‐19