Dataset Information

High-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure and after extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as an initial support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and after extubation. However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in clinical practice. We summarized the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on important outcomes including treatment failure and intubation/reintubation rates in adult patients with ARF and after extubation. METHODS:We searched 4 electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of HFNC with either COT or NIV on rates of 1) treatment failure and 2) intubation/reintubation in adult critically ill patients. RESULTS:We identified 18 RCTs (n?=?4251 patients) in pooled analyses. As a primary mode of support, HFNC treatment reduced the risk of treatment failure [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.98; p?=?0.04; I2?=?32%] but had no effect on preventing intubation (OR, 0.74; 95%CI 0.45-1.21; p?=?0.23; I2?=?0%) compared to COT. When used after extubation, HFNC (vs. COT) treatment significantly decreased reintubation rate (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.33-0.63; p

SUBMITTER: Xu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6192218 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure and after extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xu Zhiheng Z Li Yimin Y Zhou Jianmeng J Li Xi X Huang Yongbo Y Liu Xiaoqing X Burns Karen E A KEA Zhong Nanshan N Zhang Haibo H

Respiratory research 20181016 1

<h4>Background</h4>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as an initial support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and after extubation. However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in clinical practice. We summarized the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on important outcomes including treatment failure and intubation/reintubation rates in adult patients with ARF and after extubation.< ...[more]

PMID: 30326893

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Although the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in hypoxemic respiratory failure are widely recognized, it is yet unclear whether HFNC can effectively reduce the intubation rate and mortality in hypercapnic respiratory failure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficiency of HFNC in these patients. Methods:A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was carried out. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to the inclusion criteria. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, respectively. Data from eligible trials were extracted for the meta-analysis. Results:Eight studies with a total of 621 participants were included (six RCTs and two cohort studies). Our analysis showed that HFNC is noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with respect to intubation rate in both RCTs (OR?=?0.92, 95% CI: 0.45-1.88) and cohort studies (OR?=?0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.62). Similarly, the analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in reducing mortality rates (OR?=?0.96, 95% CI: 0.42-2.20). Based on RCTs, NIV seemed more effective in reducing mortality (OR?=?1.33, 95% CI: 0.68-2.60), but the intertreatment difference was not statistically signi?cant. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between HFNC and NIV relating to change of blood gas analysis or respiratory rate (MD?=?-0.75, 95% CI: -2.6 to 1.09). Likewise, no significant intergroup differences were found with regard to intensive care unit stay (SMD?=?-0.07, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.11). Due to a physiological friendly interface and variation, HFNC showed a significant advantage over NIV in patients' comfort and complication of therapy. Conclusion:Despite the limitations noted, HFNC may be an effective and safe alternative to prevent endotracheal intubation and mortality when NIV is unsuitable in mild-to-moderate hypercapnia. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

Project description:BackgroundStandard high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a respiratory support device widely used to manage post-extubation hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) due to greater comfort, oxygenation, alveolar recruitment, humidification, and reduction of dead space, as compared to conventional oxygen therapy. On the contrary, the effects of the new asymmetrical HFNC interface (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) is still under discussion. Our aim is investigating whether the use of asymmetrical HFNC interface presents any relevant difference, compared with the standard configuration, on lung aeration (as assessed by end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) measured by electrical impedance tomography (EIT)), diaphragm ultrasound thickening fraction (TFdi) and excursion (DE), ventilatory efficiency (estimated by corrected minute ventilation (MV)), gas exchange, dyspnea, and comfort.MethodsPilot physiological crossover randomized controlled study enrolling 20 adults admitted to the Intensive Care unit, invasively ventilated for at least 24 h, and developing post-extubation hARF, i.e., PaO2/set FiO2 < 300 mmHg during Venturi mask (VM) within 120 min after extubation. Each HFNC configuration was applied in a randomized 60 min sequence at a flow rate of 60 L/min.ResultsGlobal EELI, TFdi, DE, ventilatory efficiency, gas exchange and dyspnea were not significantly different, while comfort was greater during asymmetrical HFNC support, as compared to standard interface (10 [7-10] and 8 [7-9], p-value 0.044).ConclusionsIn post-extubation hARF, the use of the asymmetrical HFNC, as compared to standard HFNC interface, slightly improved patient comfort without affecting lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea and gas exchange.Clinical trial numberClinicalTrial.gov.Registration numberNCT05838326 (01/05/2023).New & noteworthyThe asymmetrical high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (Optiflow® Duet system (Fisher & Paykel, Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) provides greater comfort as compared to standard interface; while their performance in term of lung aeration, diaphragm activity, ventilatory efficiency, dyspnea, and gas exchange is similar.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on intubation rate, 28-day intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs) and ICU length of stay (ICU LOS) in adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) associated with COVID-19.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase up to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesOnly randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19 were included up to June 2022. Studies conducted on children or pregnant women, and those not published in English were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Relevant information was extracted and curated in the tables. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 computer software using a random effects model with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test (χ2) and Higgins I2 statistics, with subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity.ResultsNine studies involving 3370 (1480 received HFNC) were included. HFNC reduced the intubation rate compared with COT (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, p=0.0007), decreased 28-day ICU mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97, p=0.04) and improved 28-day VFDs (mean difference (MD) 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.45, p<0.00001). However, HFNC had no effect on ICU LOS versus COT (MD 0.52, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.06, p=0.50).ConclusionsOur study indicates that HFNC may reduce intubation rate and 28-day ICU mortality, and improve 28-day VFDs in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 compared with COT. Large-scale randomised controlled trials are necessary to validate our findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42022345713.

Project description:BackgroundThe respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index has been increasingly applied to predict the outcome of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in pneumonia patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). However, its diagnostic accuracy for the HFNC outcome has not yet been systematically assessed. This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the predictive performance of the ROC index for the successful weaning from HFNC in pneumonia patients with AHRF.MethodsA literature search was conducted on electronic databases through February 12, 2022, to retrieve studies that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the ROC index for the outcome of HFNC application in pneumonia patients with AHRF. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUHSROC) was estimated as the primary measure of diagnostic accuracy due to the varied cutoff values of the index. We observed the distribution of the cutoff values and estimated the optimal threshold with corresponding 95% confidential interval (CI).ResultsThirteen observational studies comprising 1751 patients were included, of whom 1003 (57.3%) successfully weaned from HFNC. The ROC index exhibits good performance for predicting the successful weaning from HFNC in pneumonia patients with AHRF, with an AUHSROC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84), a pooled sensitivity of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78), and a pooled specificity of 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.84). The cutoff values of the ROX index were nearly conically symmetrically distributed; most data were centered between 4.5 and 6.0, and the mean and median values were 4.8 (95% CI 4.2-5.4) and 5.3 (95% CI 4.2-5.5), respectively. Moreover, the AUHSROC in the subgroup of measurement within 6 h after commencing HFNC was comparable to that in the subgroup of measurement during 6-12 h. The stratified analyses also suggested that the ROC index was a reliable predictor of HFNC success in pneumonia patients with coronavirus disease 2019.ConclusionsIn pneumonia patients with AHRF, the ROX index measured within 12 h after HFNC initiation is a good predictor of successful weaning from HFNC. The range of 4.2-5.4 may represent the optimal confidence interval for the prediction of HFNC outcome.

Project description:BackgroundStudies suggest that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients with a low risk of extubation failure. However, the safety and effectiveness in patients at high risk of extubation failure are still debated. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of HFNC and NIV in high-risk patients.MethodsWe searched eight databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Biological Medical Database) with reintubation as a primary outcome measure. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), incidence of adverse events, and respiratory function indices. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software.ResultsThirteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 1457 patients were included. The HFNC and NIV groups showed no differences in reintubation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40, I2 = 0%, P = 0.42), mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, I2 = 0%, P = 0.54), and respiratory function indices (partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PaCO2]: MD - 1.31, 95% CI - 2.76-0.13, I2 = 81%, P = 0.07; oxygenation index [P/F]: MD - 2.18, 95% CI - 8.49-4.13, I2 = 57%, P = 0.50; respiratory rate [Rr]: MD - 0.50, 95% CI - 1.88-0.88, I2 = 80%, P = 0.47). However, HFNC reduced adverse events (abdominal distension: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.24, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01; aspiration: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.07, I2 = 0%, P = 0.06; facial injury: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.88, I2 = 0%, P = 0.03; delirium: RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.07-1.39, I2 = 0%, P = 0.12; pulmonary complications: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, I2 = 0%, P = 0.05; intolerance: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.57, I2 = 0%, P < 0.01) and may have shortened LOS (MD - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.86-- 0.20, I2 = 93%, P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis by language, extubation method, NIV parameter settings, and HFNC flow rate revealed higher heterogeneity in LOS, PaCO2, and Rr.ConclusionsIn adult patients at a high risk of extubation failure, HFNC reduced the incidence of adverse events but did not affect reintubation and mortality. Consequently, whether or not HFNC can reduce LOS and improve respiratory function remains inconclusive.

Dataset Information

High-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure and after extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

High-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure and after extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets