Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Noninvasive respiratory support devices may reduce the tracheal intubation rate compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). To date, few studies have compared high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of three respiratory support devices in patients with acute respiratory failure.Methods
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥ 16 years with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and randomized-controlled trials that compared two different oxygenation devices (COT, NPPV, or HFNC) before tracheal intubation were included. A frequentist-based approach with a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The network meta-analysis was performed using the GRADE Working Group approach. The outcomes were short-term mortality and intubation rate.Results
Among 5507 records, 27 studies (4618 patients) were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Compared with COT, NPPV and HFNC use tended to reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.88 and 0.93, respectively; 95% confidence intervals, 0.76-1.01 and 0.80-1.08, respectively; both low certainty) and lower the risk of endotracheal intubation (0.81 and 0.78; 0.72-0.91 and 0.68-0.89, respectively; both low certainty); however, short-term mortality or intubation rates did not differ (0.94 and 1.04, respectively; 0.78-1.15 and 0.88-1.22, respectively; both low certainty) between NPPV and HFNC use.Conclusion
NPPV and HFNC use are associated with a decreased risk of endotracheal intubation; however, there are no significant differences in short-term mortality.Trial registration
PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139105 , 01/21/2020).
SUBMITTER: Yasuda H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8041021 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Design, setting, and participantsA parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021.InterventionsAdult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.
| S-EPMC8787685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are at risk for life-threatening complications during endotracheal intubation. Preoxygenation might help reduce the risk of hypoxemia and intubation-related complications. This network meta-analysis summarizes the efficacy and safety of preoxygenation methods in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) that studied the use of conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and HFNC and NIV as preoxygenation before intubation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Citations' screening, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were independently performed by two authors. The primary outcome was the lowest SpO2 during the intubation procedure.ResultsWe included 7 RCTs (959 patients). Patients preoxygenated with NIV had significantly less desaturation than patients treated with COT (mean difference, MD 5.53, 95% CI 2.71, 8.34) and HFNC (MD 3.58, 95% CI 0.59, 6.57). Both NIV (odds ratio, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21, 0.87) and HFNC (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28, 0.88) resulted in a lower risk of intubation-related complications than COT. There were no significant mortality differences among the use of NIV, HFNC, COT, and HFNC and NIV during preoxygenation.ConclusionsIn adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, NIV is a safe and probably the most effective preoxygenation method.
| S-EPMC6751657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) of respiratory management strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) have been reported, but no previous study has compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygenation therapy (SOT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for de novo AHRF. Therefore, we conducted an NMA to assess the effectiveness of these four respiratory strategies in patients with de novo AHRF.MethodsThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥18 years with AHRF and RCTs that compared two different oxygenation techniques (SOT, NIV, HFNO, or IMV) were selected. A frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The outcomes were mortality and intubation rates.ResultsAmong the 14,263 records initially identified, 25 studies (3302 patients) were included. In the analysis of mortality, compared to SOT, NIV (risk ratio [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.95) reduced mortality; however, IMV (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.57-1.78) and HFNO (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.20) did not. For assessments of the intubation incidence, compared to SOT, NIV use (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) was associated with a reduction in intubation, but HFNO (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11) was not significant.ConclusionsOur NMA demonstrated that only NIV showed clinical benefits compared with SOT as an initial respiratory strategy for de novo AHRF. Further investigation, especially comparison with HFNO, is warranted.Trial registrationPROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020213948 , 11/11/2020).
| S-EPMC9072760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been diffusely employed outside the intensive care unit (ICU) to face the high request of ventilatory support due to the massive influx of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). We sought to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in COVID-19 patients supported by NIV outside the ICU.MethodsWe searched PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register, along with medRxiv and bioRxiv repositories for pre-prints, for observational studies and randomized controlled trials, from inception to the end of February 2021. Two authors independently selected the investigations according to the following criteria: (1) observational study or randomized clinical trials enrolling ≥ 50 hospitalized patients undergoing NIRS outside the ICU, (2) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and (3) at least the intra-hospital mortality reported. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed. Data extraction was independently performed by two authors to assess: investigation features, demographics and clinical characteristics, treatments employed, NIRS regulations, and clinical outcomes. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool was applied to determine the quality of the enrolled studies. The primary outcome was to assess the overall intra-hospital mortality of patients under NIRS outside the ICU. The secondary outcomes included the proportions intra-hospital mortalities of patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation following NIRS failure and of those with 'do-not-intubate' (DNI) orders.ResultsSeventeen investigations (14 peer-reviewed and 3 pre-prints) were included with a low risk of bias and a high heterogeneity, for a total of 3377 patients. The overall intra-hospital mortality of patients receiving NIRS outside the ICU was 36% [30-41%]. 26% [21-30%] of the patients failed NIRS and required intubation, with an intra-hospital mortality rising to 45% [36-54%]. 23% [15-32%] of the patients received DNI orders with an intra-hospital mortality of 72% [65-78%]. Oxygenation on admission was the main source of between-study heterogeneity.ConclusionsDuring COVID-19 outbreak, delivering NIRS outside the ICU revealed as a feasible strategy to cope with the massive demand of ventilatory assistance.RegistrationPROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , CRD42020224788, December 11, 2020.
| S-EPMC8324455 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute hypoxemic respiratory failure is one of the leading causes of intensive care unit admission and is associated with high mortality. Noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as high-flow nasal cannula, standard oxygen therapy, and noninvasive ventilation (delivered by either face mask or helmet interface) are widely available interventions applied in these patients. It remains unclear which of these interventions are more effective in decreasing rates of invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. The primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to summarize the evidence and compare the effect of noninvasive oxygenation strategies on mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe will search key databases for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of noninvasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We will exclude studies in which the primary focus is either acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiogenic pulmonary edema. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality (longest available up to 90 days). The secondary outcomes will be receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (longest available up to 30 days). We will assess the risk of bias for each of the outcomes using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to obtain pooled estimates of head-to-head comparisons. We will report pairwise and network meta-analysis treatment effect estimates as risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analyses will be conducted examining key populations including immunocompromised hosts. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted by excluding those studies with high risk of bias and different etiologies of acute respiratory failure. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using GRADE methodology.DiscussionThis study will help to guide clinical decision-making when caring for adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and improve our understanding of the limitations of the available literature assessing noninvasive oxygenation strategies in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019121755.
| S-EPMC7184712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Our hypothesis was that patients managed with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on the wards could be risk-stratified with initial pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen (SpO2/FiO2) ratios and tidal volumes (Vte). A prospective study of consecutive patients with acute respiratory failure requiring NIV on the wards was conducted. A multivariate logistic regression model and a negative binomial regression model were used. A total of 403 patients (55.8% women) had a mean age of 65.0 ± 14.9 years with a mean body mass index of 32.1 ± 11.1 kg/m2. The 28-day mortality was 14.1%, and the intubation rate was 16.1%. Pneumonia was associated with the highest 28-day mortality (22.5%) and rate of intubation (36.7%) when compared with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.4% and 7.3%) or congestive heart failure (22.2% and 13.4%). The SpO2/FiO2 groups were <214 (26.6%), 214 -357 (66.0%), and ≥357 (7.4%). Those in the SpO2/FiO2 < 214 group had a higher 28-day mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] = 8.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 -65.7), intubation rate (OR = 3.7; 95% CI 1.1 -12.1), intensive care unit admission rate (OR = 2.9; 95% CI 1.2 -7.4), and length of stay (relative risk = 2.0; 95% CI 1.3 -3.0). A Vte/predicted body weight <7.7 mL/kg was associated with increased intubations (OR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.3 -7.4), intensive care unit admissions (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 -4.6), and 30-day readmissions (OR = 2.9; 95% CI 1.2 -6.8). In conclusion, in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome who had acute respiratory failure managed with noninvasive ventilation on the wards, severe hypoxemia as assessed by a simple SpO2/FiO2 ≤ 214 was associated with poor outcomes.
| S-EPMC7156003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) is commonly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the incidence and distribution of treatment failure are unclear.MethodsA comprehensive online search was conducted to select potentially eligible studies with reports of the rate of NIV failure in patients with ARDS. A manual search was also performed to identify additional studies. Data were extracted to calculate the pooled incidences of NIV failure and mortality. Based on oxygenation, the severity of the disease was classified as mild, moderate, or severe ARDS. Based on etiologies, ARDS was defined as being of pulmonary origin or extrapulmonary origin.ResultsWe enrolled 90 studies in this meta-analysis, involving 98 study arms. The pooled incidence of NIV failure was 48% (n = 5847, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 43-52%). The pooled incidence of ICU mortality was 29% (n = 2363, 95%CI: 22-36%), and that of hospital mortality was 33% (n = 2927, 95%CI: 27-40%). In patients with mild, moderate, and severe ARDS, the pooled incidence of NIV failure was 30% (n = 819, 95%CI: 21-39%), 51% (n = 1332, 95%CI: 43-60%), and 71% (n = 525, 95%CI: 62-79%), respectively. In patients with pulmonary ARDS, it was 45% (n = 2687, 95%CI: 39-51%). However, it was 30% (n = 802, 95%CI: 21-38%) in those with extrapulmonary ARDS. In patients with immunosuppression, the incidence of NIV failure was 62% (n = 806, 95%CI: 50-74%). However, it was 46% (n = 5041, 95%CI: 41-50%) in those without immunosuppression.ConclusionsNearly half of patients with ARDS experience NIV failure. The incidence of NIV failure increases with increasing ARDS severity. Pulmonary ARDS seems to have a higher rate of NIV failure than extrapulmonary ARDS. ARDS patients with immunosuppression have the highest rate of NIV failure.
| S-EPMC10802073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies such as noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen may be more effective than standard oxygen therapy alone in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Objective:To compare the association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with mortality and endotracheal intubation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Data Sources:The following bibliographic databases were searched from inception until April 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS. No limits were applied to language, publication year, sex, or race. Study Selection:Randomized clinical trials enrolling adult participants with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure comparing high-flow nasal oxygen, face mask noninvasive ventilation, helmet noninvasive ventilation, or standard oxygen therapy. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Network meta-analyses using a bayesian framework to derive risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences along with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were conducted. GRADE methodology was used to rate the certainty in findings. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 90 days. A secondary outcome was endotracheal intubation up to 30 days. Results:Twenty-five randomized clinical trials (3804 participants) were included. Compared with standard oxygen, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.24-0.63]; absolute risk difference, -0.19 [95% CrI, -0.37 to -0.09]; low certainty) and face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.68-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.06 [95% CrI, -0.15 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with a lower risk of mortality (21 studies [3370 patients]). Helmet noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.26 [95% CrI, 0.14-0.46]; absolute risk difference, -0.32 [95% CrI, -0.60 to -0.16]; low certainty), face mask noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.62-0.90]; absolute risk difference, -0.12 [95% CrI, -0.25 to -0.05]; moderate certainty) and high-flow nasal oxygen (RR, 0.76 [95% CrI, 0.55-0.99]; absolute risk difference, -0.11 [95% CrI, -0.27 to -0.01]; moderate certainty) were associated with lower risk of endotracheal intubation (25 studies [3804 patients]). The risk of bias due to lack of blinding for intubation was deemed high. Conclusions and Relevance:In this network meta-analysis of trials of adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with noninvasive oxygenation strategies compared with standard oxygen therapy was associated with lower risk of death. Further research is needed to better understand the relative benefits of each strategy.
| S-EPMC7273316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the major complication of coronavirus disease 2019, yet optimal respiratory support strategies are uncertain. We aimed to describe outcomes with high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and identify individual factors associated with noninvasive respiratory support failure.DesignRetrospective cohort study to describe rates of high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and/or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation success (live discharge without endotracheal intubation). Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to identify patient characteristics associated with high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and/or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure (endotracheal intubation and/or in-hospital mortality).SettingOne large academic health system, including five hospitals (one quaternary referral center, a tertiary hospital, and three community hospitals), in New York City.PatientsAll hospitalized adults 18-100 years old with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted between March 1, 2020, and April 28, 2020.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsA total of 331 and 747 patients received high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation as the highest level of noninvasive respiratory support, respectively; 154 (46.5%) in the high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula cohort and 167 (22.4%) in the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation cohort were successfully discharged without requiring endotracheal intubation. In adjusted models, significantly increased risk of high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure was seen among patients with cardiovascular disease (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.17-2.83 and subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.06-1.84, respectively). Conversely, a higher peripheral blood oxygen saturation to Fio2 ratio at high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation initiation was associated with reduced risk of failure (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.54, and subdistribution hazard ratio 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55, respectively).ConclusionsA significant proportion of patients receiving noninvasive respiratory modalities for coronavirus disease 2019 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure achieved successful hospital discharge without requiring endotracheal intubation, with lower success rates among those with comorbid cardiovascular disease or more severe hypoxemia. The role of high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure warrants further consideration.
| S-EPMC7909114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is associated with significant acute mortality. It is unclear whether later mortality is predominantly driven by pre-existing comorbid disease, the acute inciting event or is the result of AHRF itself.Observational cohort study of elderly US Health and Retirement Study (HRS) participants in fee-for-service Medicare (1998-2012). Patients hospitalised with AHRF were matched 1:1 to otherwise similar adults who were not currently hospitalised and separately to patients hospitalised with acute inciting events (pneumonia, non-pulmonary infection, aspiration, trauma, pancreatitis) that may result in AHRF, here termed at-risk hospitalisations. The primary outcome was late mortality-death in the 31 days to 2 years following hospital admission.Among 15?075?HRS participants, we identified 1268 AHRF and 13?117 at-risk hospitalisations. AHRF hospitalisations were matched to 1157 non-hospitalised adults and 1017 at-risk hospitalisations. Among patients who survived at least 30 days, AHRF was associated with a 24.4% (95%CI 19.9% to 28.9%, p<0.001) absolute increase in late mortality relative to adults not currently hospitalised and a 6.7% (95%CI 1.7% to 11.7%, p=0.01) increase relative to adults hospitalised with acute inciting event(s) alone. At-risk hospitalisation explained 71.2% of the increased odds of late mortality, whereas the development of AHRF itself explained 28.8%. Risk for death was equivalent to at-risk hospitalisation beyond 90?days, but remained elevated for more than 1?year compared with non-hospitalised controls.In this national sample of older Americans, approximately one in four survivors with AHRF had a late death not explained by pre-AHRF health status. More than 70% of this increased risk was associated with hospitalisation for acute inciting events, while 30% was associated with hypoxemic respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC5799038 | biostudies-literature