Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
High-flow nasal oxygen helps dogs with severe breathing failure
By Jagodich, Tiffany A et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)·2020·Department of Clinical Sciences, Canada·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in 22 dogs requiring oxygen support escalation.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 22 dogs with severe breathing problems that didn't improve with regular oxygen therapy were treated with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy. After starting HFNC, many dogs showed significant improvements, including a decrease in how hard they were breathing and better oxygen levels within just 30 minutes. By the end of the treatment, about 45% of the dogs responded well enough to survive. This method of oxygen support helped these dogs breathe easier without causing any additional complications.
People also search for: dog breathing problems treatment · high-flow nasal cannula for dogs · oxygen therapy for dogs with respiratory failure
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy on cardiorespiratory variables and outcome in dogs with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN: Prospective, sequential clinical trial. SETTING: University veterinary teaching hospital. ANIMALS: Twenty-two client-owned dogs that failed to respond to traditional oxygen support. INTERVENTIONS: Initiation of HFNC therapy after traditional oxygen supplementation failed to increase Spo> 96% and Pao> 75 mm Hg or improve respiratory rate/effort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physiological variables, blood gas analyses, and dyspnea/sedation/tolerance scores were collected prior to HFNC initiation (on traditional oxygen support [time 0 or T0]), and subsequently during HFNC oxygen administration at time 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and 7 ± 1 hours. Relative to T0, use of HFNC resulted in a decreased respiratory rate at 1 hour (P = 0.022) and 7 hours (P = 0.012), a decrease in dyspnea score at all times (P < 0.01), and an increase in Spoat all times (P < 0.01). There was no difference in arterial/venous Pcorelative to T0, although Pacowas correlated with flow rate. Based on respiratory assessment, 60% of dogs responded to HFNC use by 30 minutes, and 45% ultimately responded to HFNC use and survived. No clinical air-leak syndromes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC use improved oxygenation and work of breathing relative to traditional oxygen therapies, without impairing ventilation. HFNC use appears to be a beneficial oxygen support modality to bridge the gap between standard oxygen supplementation and mechanical ventilation.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32583614/