clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: ACTRN12613001370796.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency medicine 2016. Other selected articles can be found online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2016. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

The influence of variables that might affect the accuracy of pulse oximetry (SpO 2 ) recordings in critically ill patients is not well established. We sought to describe the relationship between paired SpO 2 /SaO 2 (oxygen saturation via arterial blood gas analysis) in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients and to describe the diagnostic performance of SpO 2 in detecting low SaO 2 and PaO 2 . A paired SpO 2 /SaO 2 measurement was obtained from 404 adults in ICU. Measurements were used to calculate bias, precision, and limits of agreement. Associations between bias and variables including vasopressor and inotrope use, capillary refill time, hand temperature, pulse pressure, body temperature, oximeter model, and skin colour were estimated. There was no overall statistically significant bias in paired SpO 2 /SaO 2 measurements; observed limits of agreement were +/-4.4%. However, body temperature, oximeter model, and skin colour, were statistically significantly associated with the degree of bias. SpO 2 <89% had a sensitivity of 3/7 (42.9%; 95% confidence intervals, CI, 9.9% to 81.6%) and a specificity of 344/384 (89.6%; 95% CI 86.1% to 92.5%) for detecting SaO 2 <89%. The absence of statistically significant bias in paired SpO 2 /SaO 2 in adult ICU patients provides support for the use of pulse oximetry to titrate oxygen therapy. However, SpO 2 recordings alone should be used cautiously when SaO 2 recordings of 4.4% higher or lower than the observed SpO 2 would be of concern. A range of variables relevant to the critically ill had little or no effect on bias.

No abstract

Objectives. Delivery of warmed, humidified air via nasal high flow therapy could potentially reduce replication of temperature-sensitive viruses in the upper respiratory tract. This study investigates whether nasal high flow therapy is well tolerated by healthy adults at 37°C and 41°C. Methods. In this randomised, double-blind, controlled crossover pilot trial, nasal high flow therapy was used to deliver humidified air at 35 L/min, at either 37°C or 41°C, for three one-hour sessions of use over one day. The alternative was delivered at least 14 days later. Ten healthy, nonsmoking adults were asked, via questionnaire after each day's use, whether they would use nasal high flow therapy while being unwell with a cold or flu if it was demonstrated to improve symptoms. Results. All participants completed both interventions. Eighty percent responded “yes” to future use of nasal high flow therapy, for both 37°C and 41°C. There was no significant change from baseline in saccharin times following either intervention or in the following morning. Conclusions. Delivering humidified air via nasal high flow therapy at both 37°C and 41°C is well tolerated by healthy adults. This supports investigation into the potential use of nasal high flow therapy as treatment in viral upper respiratory tract infections. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with ACTRN12614000183684 (tolerability study of nasal delivery of humidified & warmed air).