The normal physiology of conditioning of inspired gases is altered when the patient requires an artificial airway access and an invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The endotracheal tube (ETT) removes the natural mechanisms of filtration, humidification and warming of inspired air. Despite the noninvasive ventilation (NIMV) in the upper airways, humidification of inspired gas may not be optimal mainly due to the high flow that is being created by the leakage compensation, among other aspects. Any moisture and heating deficit is compensated by the large airways of the tracheobronchial tree, these are poorly suited for this task, which alters mucociliary function, quality of secretions, and homeostasis gas exchange system. To avoid the occurrence of these events, external devices that provide humidification, heating and filtration have been developed, with different degrees of evidence that support their use.

Physiotherapist in Chile and Respiratory Therapist worldwide are the professionals who are experts in respiratory care, in mechanical ventilation (MV), pathophysiology and connection and disconnection criteria. They should be experts in every aspect of the acute respiratory failure and its management, they and are the ones who in medical units are able to resolve doubts about ventilation and the setting of the ventilator. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation should be the first-line of treatment in acute respiratory failure, and the standard of care in severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and in immunosuppressed patients with high levels of evidence that support the work of physiotherapist. Exist other considerations where most of the time, physicians and other professionals in the critical units do not take into account when checking the patient ventilator synchrony, such as the appropriate patient selection, ventilator selection, mask selection, mode selection, and the selection of a trained team in NIMV. The physiotherapist needs to evaluate bedside; if patients are properly connected to the ventilator and in a synchronously manner. In Chile, since 2004, the physioterapist are included in the guidelines as a professional resource in the ICU organization, with the same skills and obligations as those described in the literature for respiratory therapists.

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) was created for patients who needed noninvasive ventilator support, this procedure decreases the complications associated with the use of endotracheal intubation (ETT). The application of NIMV has acquired major relevance in the last few years in the management of acute respiratory failure (ARF), in patients with hypoxemic and hypercapnic failure. The main advantage of NIMV as compared to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is that it can be used earlier outside intensive care units (ICUs). The evidence strongly supports its use in patients with COPD exacerbation, support in weaning process in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), and Immunosuppressed patients. On the other hand, there is poor evidence that supports the use of NIMV in other pathologies such as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and during procedures as bronchoscopy, where its use is still controversial because the results of these studies are inconclusive against the decrease in the rate of intubation or mortality.

Introduction: High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) is a novel technique for respiratory support that improves oxygenation. In some patients, it may reduce the work of breathing. In immunocompromised patients with Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF), Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) is the main support recommended strategy, since invasive mechanical ventilation could increase mortality rates. NIV used for more than 48 hours may be associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Therefore HFNC seems like a respiratory support alternative. Objective: To describe clinical outcomes of immunocompromised patients with ARF HFNC-supported. Methods: Retrospective study in patients admitted with ARF and HFNC-supported. 25 adult patients were included, 21 pharmacologically and 4 non- pharmacologically immunosuppressed. Median age of the patients was 64 [60-76] years, APACHE II 15 [11-19], and PaO2:FiO2 218 [165-248]. Demographic information, origin of immunosuppression, Respiratory Rate (RR), Heart Rate (HR), Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), oxygen saturation (SpO2) and PaO2:FiO2 ratio were extracted from clinical records of our HFNC local protocol. Data acquisition was performed before and after the first 24 hours of connection. In addition, the need for greater ventilatory support after HFNC, orotracheal intubation, in-hospital mortality and 90 days out-patients’ mortality was recorded. Results: Mean RR before the connection was 25±22 breaths/min and 22±4 breaths/min after the first 24 hours of HFNC use (95% CI; p=0.02). HR mean before connection to HFNC was 96±22 beats/min, and after, it was 86±15 beats/min (95%CI; p=0.008). Previous mean MAP was 86±15 mmHg, and after HFNC, it was 80±12 mmHg (95%CI; p=0.09); mean SpO2 after was 93±5% and before it was 95±4% (95% CI; p=0.13); and previous PaO2:FiO2 mean was 219±66, and after it was 324±110 (95%CI; p=0.52). In-hospital mortality was 28% and 90 days out-patients’ mortality was 32%. Conclusion: HFNC in immunosuppressed ARF subjects significantly decreases HR and RR, being apparently an effective alternative to decrease work of breathing. In-hospital mortality in ARF immunosuppressed patients was high even though respiratory support was used. Better studies are needed to define the role of HFNC-support in ARF.