Dataset Information

Use High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in emergency departments (EDs).

Method

We comprehensively searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) for articles published from database inception to 12 July 2019. This study included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted in EDs and compared HFNC therapy with COT or NIV. The primary outcome was the intubation rate. The secondary outcomes were the mortality rate, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, ED discharge rate, need for escalation, length of ED stay, length of hospital stay, and patient dyspnea and comfort scores.

Result

Five RCTs (n?=?775) were included. There was a decreasing trend regarding the application of HFNC therapy and the intubation rate, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.26-1.09; p=0.08; I ²?=?0%). We found that compared with patients who underwent COT, those who underwent HFNC therapy had a reduced need for escalation (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.78; p=0.006; I ²?=?0%), reduced dyspnea scores (MD -0.82, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.18), and improved comfort (SMD -0.76 SD, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.51). Compared with the COT group, the HFNC therapy group had a similar mortality rate (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.79-1.99; p=0.34; I ²?=?0%), ICU admission rate (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.58-2.12; p=0.76; I ²?=?0%), ED discharge rate (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.72; p=0.87; I ²?=?0%), length of ED stay (MD 1.66, 95% CI -0.95 to 4.27), and hospital stay (MD 0.9, 95% CI -2.06 to 3.87).

Conclusion

Administering HFNC therapy in ARF patients in EDs might decrease the intubation rate compared with COT. In addition, it can decrease the need for escalation, decrease the patient's dyspnea level, and increase the patient's comfort level compared with COT.

SUBMITTER: Huang CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6815584 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Study.

Huang Cheng-Chieh CC Lan Hao-Min HM Li Chao-Jui CJ Lee Tsung-Han TH Chen Wen-Liang WL Lei Wei-Yuan WY Hsieh Pei-You PY Yang Mei-Chueh MC Chou Chu-Chung CC Wu Han-Ping HP Syue Yuan-Jhen YJ

Emergency medicine international 20191013

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in emergency departments (EDs).<h4>Method</h4>We comprehensively searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) for articles published from database inception to 12 July 2019. This study included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted in EDs ...[more]

PMID: 31737365

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: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:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) may be an attractive first-line ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients. However, HNFC use for the management of COVID-19 patients and risk factors for HFNC failure remain to be determined.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first (Mars-May 2020) and second (August 2020- February 202) French pandemic waves. Patients with limitations for intubation were excluded. HFNC failure was defined as the need for intubation after ICU admission. The impact of HFNC use was analyzed in the whole cohort and after constructing a propensity score. Risk factors for HNFC failure were identified through a landmark time-dependent cause-specific Cox model. The ability of the 6-h ROX index to detect HFNC failure was assessed by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Results200 patients were included: HFNC was used in 114(57%) patients, non-invasive ventilation in 25(12%) patients and 145(72%) patients were intubated with a median delay of 0 (0-2) days after ICU admission. Overall, 78(68%) patients had HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had a higher ICU mortality rate (34 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) than those without. At landmark time of 48 and 72 h, SAPS-2 score, extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75% and HFNC duration (cause specific hazard ratio (CSH) = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04-0.28), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 48 h and CSH = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.23), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 72 h) were associated with HFNC failure. The 6-h ROX index was lower in patients with HFNC failure but could not reliably predicted HFNC failure with an area under ROC curve of 0.65 (95% CI(0.52-0.78), p = 0.02). In the matched cohort, HFNC use was associated with a lower risk of intubation (CSH = 0.32, 95% CI (0.19-0.57), p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn critically-ill COVID-19 patients, while HFNC use as first-line ventilatory support was associated with a lower risk of intubation, more than half of patients had HFNC failure. Risk factors for HFNC failure were SAPS-2 score and extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75%. The risk of HFNC failure could not be predicted by the 6-h ROX index but decreased after a 48-h HFNC duration.

Dataset Information

Use High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Study.

Objective

Method

Result

Conclusion

Publications

Use High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets