TY - JOUR T1 - Is the high flow changing the indications of RICU? JF - ERJ Open Research JO - erjor DO - 10.1183/23120541.RFMVC-2020.11 VL - 6 IS - suppl 4 SP - 11 AU - Antoni Marín Muñiz AU - Irene Aldás Criado AU - Maria Sol Prats Bardaji AU - Jorge Abad Capa AU - Antoni Rosell Gratacós Y1 - 2020/02/13 UR - http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/6/suppl_4/11.abstract N2 - Introduction: Many departments in Europe treat patients with severe respiratory diseases in the respiratory intermediate care units (RICUs). Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are the cornestone of the treatments prescribed. The aim of the present study was to describe the 7 months activity of our unit and compare the use of NIV vs HFNC.Methods: A systematic record of activity carried out between January and July 2019 was kept prospectively. The main variables were demographics, clinical data, respiratory support methods, and in-hospital mortality.Results: Of 112 patients with a mean age of 63 years admitted to the unit, 41 had do-not-intubate (DNI) orders. 41% came from the emergency department, 27% from the intensive care unit (ICU), 32% from others services. Severe hypoxemic failure (43.8%) was the main respiratory indication, respiratory acidosis was the second (24.1%) (fig1). 30.3% required NIV, 30,3% required HFNC, 12,5% alternated both systems. Rest data showed in fig2. Median length of stay was 4 days. 67% of patients were discharged to the respiratory ward; 15.3% to other wards, 2.7% required subsequent admission to the ICU, 15% died.Conclusions: In this sample, we highlight the role of HFNC that nearly equals the indications for NIVFootnotesCite this article as: ERJ Open Research 2020; 6: Suppl. 4, 11.This is an ERS Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation Conference abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only). ER -