Dataset Information

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a relatively new therapy used in adults with respiratory failure. Whether it is superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether HFNC was superior to either COT or NIV in adult acute respiratory failure patients.

Methods

A review of the literature was conducted from the electronic databases from inception up to 20 October 2016. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with COT or HFNC with NIV were included. The intubation rate was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included the mechanical ventilation rate, the rate of escalation of respiratory support and mortality.

Results

Eleven studies that enrolled 3459 patients (HFNC, n?=?1681) were included. There were eight studies comparing HFNC with COT, two comparing HFNC with NIV, and one comparing all three. HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, P?=?0.002), mechanical ventilation rate (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.97, P?=?0.04) and the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67, P?ConclusionsCompared to COT, HFNC reduced the rate of intubation, mechanical ventilation and the escalation of respiratory support. When compared to NIV, HFNC showed no better outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are necessary to prove our findings.

Trial registration

PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on May 25, 2016 registration no. CRD42016039581 .

SUBMITTER: Zhao H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5508784 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients. However, their efficacy in post-extubated sepsis patients remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of HFNC vs. NIV to prevent reintubation in post-extubated sepsis patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-centre, prospective, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial at the medical intensive care unit of Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Sepsis patients who had been intubated, recovered, and passed the spontaneous breathing trial were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HFNC or NIV support immediately after extubation. The primary outcome was rate of reintubation at 72 h after extubation.ResultsBetween 1st October 2017 and 31st October 2019, 222 patients were enrolled and 112 were assigned to the HFNC group and 110 to the NIV group. Both groups were well matched in baseline characteristics. The median [IQR] age of the HFNC group was 66 [50-77] vs. 65.5 [54-77] years in the NIV group. The most common causes of intubation at admission were shock-related respiratory failure (57.1% vs. 55.5%) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (34.8% vs. 40.9%) in the HFNC and NIV groups, respectively. The duration of mechanical ventilation before extubation was 5 [3-8] days in the HFNC group vs. 5 [3-9] days in the NIV group. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome: 20/112 (17.9%) in the HFNC group required reintubation at 72 h compared to 20/110 (18.2%) in the NIV group [relative risk (RR) 0.99: 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.70-1.39); P = 0.95]. The 28-day mortality was not different: 8/112 (7.1%) with HFNC vs. 10/110 (9.1%) with NIV (RR 0.88: 95% CI (0.57-1.37); P = 0.59).ConclusionsAmong sepsis patients, there was no difference between HFNC and NIV in the prevention of reintubation at 72 h after extubation. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246893; Registered 11 August 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03246893?term=surat+tongyoo&draw=2&rank=3.

Project description:BackgroundCritically ill patients with obesity may have an increased risk of difficult intubation and subsequent severe hypoxemia. We hypothesized that pre-oxygenation with noninvasive ventilation before intubation as compared with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen may decrease the risk of severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity.MethodsPost hoc subgroup analysis of critically ill patients with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg·m-2) from a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen before intubation of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mm Hg). The primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypoxemia (pulse oximetry < 80%) during the intubation procedure.ResultsAmong the 313 patients included in the original trial, 91 (29%) had obesity with a mean body mass index of 35 ± 5 kg·m-2. Patients with obesity were more likely to experience an episode of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure than patients without obesity: 34% (31/91) vs. 22% (49/222); difference, 12%; 95% CI 1 to 23%; P = 0.03. Among patients with obesity, 40 received preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation and 51 with high-flow nasal oxygen. Severe hypoxemia occurred in 15 patients (37%) with noninvasive ventilation and 16 patients (31%) with high-flow nasal oxygen (difference, 6%; 95% CI - 13 to 25%; P = 0.54). The lowest pulse oximetry values during intubation procedure were 87% [interquartile range, 77-93] with noninvasive ventilation and 86% [78-92] with high-flow nasal oxygen (P = 0.98). After multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with severe hypoxemia in patients with obesity were intubation difficulty scale > 5 points and respiratory primary failure as reason for admission.ConclusionsPatients with obesity and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure had an increased risk of severe hypoxemia during intubation procedure as compared to patients without obesity. However, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation may not reduce this risk compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. Trial registration Clinical trial number: NCT02668458 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is recommended by some scholars as an optimized respiratory support method for blunt chest trauma (BCT) patients. The basis of this recommendation is limited, however, and the efficacy of HFNC or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in BCT patients has not yet been rigorously explored. This study aims to determine if HFNC is non-inferior to NIV in reducing treatment failure in moderate to severe BCT patients with acute respiratory failure.MethodsThis will be a prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Moderate to severe BCT patients with acute respiratory failure (100mmHg < PaO2/FiO2 ≦ 200mmHg) who do not need immediate intubation will be randomized to HFNC or NIV within 48 h after trauma. The primary outcome is treatment failure, defined as invasive ventilation or a switch in respiratory support modality (from HFNC to NIV or vice-versa). Secondary outcomes include arterial blood gas analysis and vital signs at 2 and 12 h after initiating HFNC or NIV treatment, as well as patients' comfort scores, dyspnea scores, daily number of nursing airway care interventions, incidence of pneumonia or pneumothorax, facial skin breakdown, duration of NIV or HFNC, 28-day mortality, and total ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Based on an α error of 5% and a β error of 80%, with a non-inferiority limit of 9%, a sample size of 562 will be required to accomplish the trial goal, considering potential patient dropouts and nonparametric analysis.DiscussionWe hypothesize that HFNC will be non-inferior to NIV in reducing treatment failure in moderate to severe BCT with acute respiratory failure. The results should be useful for judging whether HFNC could be an effective alternative to NIV to treat moderate to severe BCT patients, especially for those who do not tolerate or have contraindications for NIV.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800017313 . Registered on July 24, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundHypoxemia frequently occurs during bronchoscopy. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy may be a feasible alternative to prevent the deterioration of gas exchange during bronchoscopy. With the convenience of clinical use in mind, we modified an HFNC using a single cannula. This clinical trial was designed to test the hypothesis that a modified HFNC would decrease the proportion of patients with a single moment of peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) < 90% during bronchoscopy.MethodsIn this single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial, hospitalized patients in the respiratory department in need of diagnostic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to a modified HFNC oxygen therapy group or a conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a single moment of SpO2 < 90% during bronchoscopy.ResultsEight hundred and twelve patients were randomized to the modified HFNC (n = 406) or COT (n = 406) group. Twenty-four patients were unable to cooperate or comply with bronchoscopy. Thus, 788 patients were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients with a single moment of SpO2 < 90% during bronchoscopy in the modified HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the COT group (12.5% vs. 28.8%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the fraction of inspired oxygen between the two groups. The lowest SpO2 during bronchoscopy and 5 min after bronchoscopy in the modified HFNC group was significantly higher than that in the COT group. Multivariate analysis showed that a baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) < 2.7 L (OR, 0.276; 95% CI, 0.083-0.919, p = 0.036) and a volume of fluid instilled > 60 ml (OR, 1.034; 95% CI, 1.002-1.067, p = 0.036) were independent risk factors for hypoxemia during bronchoscopy in the modified HFNC group.ConclusionsA modified HFNC could decrease the proportion of patients with a single moment of SpO2 < 90% during bronchoscopy. A lower baseline FVC and large-volume bronchoalveolar lavage may predict desaturation during bronchoscopy when using a modified HFNC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials. Gov: NCT02606188. Registered 17 November 2015.

Project description:BackgroundAdequate respiratory support can improve clinical outcomes in patients who are ready for weaning from a ventilator. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of respiratory methods in adults undergoing planned extubation using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing trials up to November 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that compared conventional oxygen therapy (COT), a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for post-extubation respiratory support. Screening of citations, study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk were performed independently by two authors. The primary outcome was the reintubation rate.ResultsTwenty-two studies (4,218 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Extubated patients supported with NIV had a significantly lower incidence of reintubation than those supported with COT [odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42, 0.89]. However, there was no significant difference in the reintubation rate between the HFNC and NIV, and HFNC and COT groups (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.81; OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33, 1.02, respectively). HFNC and NIV reduced the incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.93; OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.87, respectively) and post-extubation acute respiratory failure (ARF) (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.89; OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.63, respectively) compared with COT. There was no significant difference in a decreased incidence of HAP (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.8) or post-extubation ARF (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33, 2.1) between NIV and HFNC. There were also no significant differences in improvements in other clinical outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and the length of stay (LOS) between NIV and HFNC.ConclusionsNIV reduces the reintubation rate in adult patients undergoing planned extubation compared with COT and HFNC.