Benefits of Humidified High Flow Nasal Oxygen Quiz

Noninvasive ventilation is recommended for immunosuppressed patients with pulmonary infiltrates, fever, and acute respiratory failure.

The study by Parke et al. in 2011 was a preliminary randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal high-flow oxygen in intensive care patients.

Helmet CPAP has been proven more effective than oxygen therapy alone in improving oxygenation in community-acquired pneumonia.

P-SILI justifies the intubation of COVID-19 patients according to a study published in Annals of Intensive Care in 2020.

A study in Anaesthesia in 2008 evaluated the performance of oxygen delivery devices when simulating the breathing pattern of respiratory failure.

High-flow oxygen therapy was more efficient than helmet NIV in reducing patients' respiratory effort.

Patients with intense baseline inspiratory effort and severe oxygenation impairment benefited more from helmet NIV.

There was a significant reduction in mortality with corticosteroid therapy.

Hyperglycaemia occurred in 18% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 12% of patients with placebo.

All older RCTs comparing hydrocortisone to placebo were multicentre studies.

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is always superior to standard oxygen therapy for patients with sCAP and acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is not recommended for patients with persistent hypoxaemic respiratory failure who do not need immediate intubation.

HFNO has been shown to provide better oxygenation, more comfort, and lower respiratory rate when compared to standard oxygen therapy in patients with acute respiratory failure.

Breathing efforts during spontaneous ventilation can have no impact on lung injury in patients with acute respiratory failure.

The ability of HFNO to deliver high fractions of inspired oxygen generates a mild negative end-expiratory pressure effect in the airways.

Noninvasive ventilation is not recommended in patients with the most severe spectrum of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

The guidelines aim to standardize the treatment and management of patients with severe CAP.

The guidelines for critically ill patients with CAP are easy to implement regardless of healthcare system variations.

The recommendations for severely ill CAP patients have been developed solely by specialists in the field of respiratory medicine.

The guidelines highlight existing knowledge gaps and provide suggestions for future research in the field of CAP.

In patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) due to influenza, it is recommended to use oseltamivir without confirming the diagnosis with PCR.

For patients with sCAP and shock, corticosteroids are not recommended based on the guidelines.

Empirical oseltamivir is recommended for patients with sCAP when PCR confirmation of influenza is available.

Patients with sCAP and aspiration risk factors should receive specific therapy targeting anaerobic bacteria according to the guidelines.

Immunocompromised patients are excluded from the recommendation to integrate specific risk factors for guiding antibiotic prescription in sCAP patients.

In patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia, rapid microbiological techniques are recommended to be added to current testing of blood and respiratory tract samples.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is suggested over standard oxygen for patients with sCAP and acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure not requiring immediate intubation.

For hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia, the addition of fluoroquinolones to beta-lactams is suggested as empirical antibiotic therapy.

Procalcitonin (PCT) is suggested to reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with sCAP.

Helmet CPAP has been proven less effective than oxygen therapy alone in improving oxygenation in community-acquired pneumonia.

Helmet NIV is more efficient than high-flow oxygen therapy in reducing patients' respiratory effort.

Hyperglycaemia occurred in 18% of patients receiving helmet CPAP and 12% of patients with placebo.

Noninvasive ventilation is not recommended for immunosuppressed patients with pulmonary infiltrates, fever, and acute respiratory failure.

Patients with intense baseline expiratory effort and severe oxygenation impairment benefit more from helmet CPAP.

High-flow oxygen therapy has been proven more effective than helmet NIV in improving oxygenation in community-acquired pneumonia.

The study by Parke et al. in 2011 was a preliminary randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of helmet CPAP in intensive care patients.

There was a significant reduction in mortality with noninvasive ventilation therapy.

$18 ext{%}$ of patients receiving corticosteroids had hyperglycaemia, while $12 ext{%}$ of patients receiving chemotherapy had hyperglycaemia.

Patients undergoing transplantation with a CD4 count lower than 200 are included in the scope for sCAP management guidance.

The guidelines were developed by an ERS, ESICM, ESCMID and ALAT task force, with no involvement of methodologists.

The risk prediction methods for DRP mentioned in the review are characterised by high specificity and generally low sensitivity.

Most of the risk prediction scores mentioned have high positive predictive values.

MARUYAMA et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the risk prediction algorithm from NIEDERMAN and BRITO.

In the prospective implementation study by WEBB et al., the electronic CAP clinical decision support included the DRIP score.

The algorithm recommended broad-spectrum antibiotics in more cases than they were actually received.

Excessively broad antibiotic therapy has been shown to be associated with positive outcomes for patients with CAP.

The use of multiplex PCR assays can lead to inappropriate escalation of antibiotics based on false-positive results.

In most cases of positive PCR, negative culture cases are usually false-negative.

The culture/PCR discordance is more likely to occur with antibiotic-resistant pathogens that require the same antibiotics as usual CAP therapy.

A cost–benefit analysis is available for multiplex PCR testing, considering potential benefits and testing costs.

Empirical antibiotic selection in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is solely based on clinical judgment.

Risk prediction algorithms for drug-resistant pathogens have no impact on initial empiric antibiotic therapy in pneumonia patients.

Strategies for predicting drug-resistant pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia are irrelevant for hospitalized patients.

Risk factors for multidrug-resistant pathogens play a significant role in guiding empiric antibiotic therapy for pneumonia patients.

Using risk factors to predict drug-resistant pathogens has no impact on the selection of initial empiric therapy in pneumonia patients.

The use of the DRIP score was associated with a reduction in narrow-spectrum antibiotic use.

Failure to initiate appropriate empirical therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock has been linked to decreased morbidity and mortality.

The unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with shorter hospital stays.

Accurately predicting which patients require DRP coverage is not considered an important clinical objective.

Early administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobial regimens is associated with increased mortality.

Risk factors for drug resistance in pneumonia can be categorized into pathogen acquisition, colonisation persistence, selective pressure from antibiotics, and host physiology alteration.

According to the guidelines, it is recommended to avoid using the healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) definition when treating patients with empirical therapy directed at drug-resistant pathogens.

Risk prediction models based on reproducible risk factors have been shown to accurately estimate the risk of drug-resistant pathogens in pneumonia.

Patients with a history of colonisation or infection with drug-resistant pathogens are not considered at risk for drug resistance according to the guidelines.

Selecting empirical antibiotics based on specific risk factors is only recommended for immunocompromised sCAP patients according to the guidelines.

The global prevalence of MRSA in patients with CAP was 5% in the GLIMP cohort study.

Patients with low risk scores according to DRP prediction models may benefit from narrow-spectrum treatment, reducing costs associated with drug acquisition.

The prevalence of P.aeruginosa was 2% in patients with confirmed diagnosis of CAP in a point prevalence study that included 3193 patients.

The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics for CAP has decreased over time to cover DRP such as MRSA, P.aeruginosa, and ESBL-producing Enterobacterales.

The cost–benefit of using narrow-spectrum antimicrobials has been clearly demonstrated in patients with sCAP.

Adding fluoroquinolones to beta-lactams is suggested as empirical antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) is recommended for patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) and acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure not requiring immediate intubation.

Immunocompromised patients are included in the recommendation to integrate specific risk factors for guiding antibiotic prescription in sCAP patients.

Procalcitonin (PCT) is not suggested to reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment in patients with sCAP.

Helmet CPAP has been proven more effective than oxygen therapy alone in improving oxygenation in community-acquired pneumonia.

The ability of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO) to deliver high fractions of inspired oxygen generates a mild positive end-expiratory pressure effect in the airways.

Most of the risk prediction scores mentioned have low positive predictive values.

Adding rapid microbiological techniques to current testing of blood and respiratory tract samples is not recommended for patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.

The guidelines for critically ill patients with CAP are difficult to implement regardless of healthcare system variations.

$18 ext{%}$ of patients receiving corticosteroids had hyperglycaemia, while $12 ext{%}$ of patients receiving chemotherapy had hyperglycaemia.