scholarly journals High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Yongkang Huang ◽  
Wei Lei ◽  
Wenyu Zhang ◽  
Jian-an Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

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 significant. 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.

scholarly journals The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula on the Outcome of Immunocompromised Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. 693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng ◽  
Chang ◽  
Wang ◽  
Hsiao ◽  
Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Intubation Rate ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
And Control

Background and objectives: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as a respiratory support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in immunocompromised patients. Thus, this meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on the outcomes in immunocompromised patients with ARF. The Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to November 2018. Materials and Methods: Only clinical studies comparing the effect of HFNC with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF were included. The outcome included the rate of intubation, mortality and length of stay (LOS). Results: A total of eight studies involving 1433 immunocompromised patients with ARF were enrolled. The pooled analysis showed that HFNC was significantly associated with a reduced intubation rate (risk ratio (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74–0.94, I2 = 0%). Among subgroup analysis, HFNC was associated with a lower intubation rate than COT (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75–0.95, I2 = 0%) and NIV (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.86, I2 = 0%), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between HFNC and control groups in terms of 28-day mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58–1.04, I2 = 48%), and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73–1.05, I2 = 57%). The ICU and hospital LOS were similar between HFNC and control groups (ICU LOS: mean difference, 0.49 days; 95% CI, −0.25–1.23, I2 = 69%; hospital LOS: mean difference, −0.12 days; 95% CI, −1.86–1.61, I2 = 64%). Conclusions: Use of HFNC may decrease the intubation rate in immunocompromised patients with ARF compared with the control group, including COT and NIV. However, HFNC could not provide additional survival benefit or shorten the LOS. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 298-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Yenal Dundar ◽  
Prakesh S Shah ◽  
Ben NJ Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Safe Alternative

AbstractBackgroundHeated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as a mode of respiratory support. We updated a systematic review and meta-analyses examining the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with standard treatments for preterm infants. The primary outcome was the need for reintubation for preterm infants following mechanical ventilation (post-extubation analysis) or need for intubation for preterm infants not previously intubated (analysis of primary respiratory support)MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HHHFNC versus standard treatments. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.ResultsThe post-extubation analysis included ten RCTs (n = 1,201), and the analysis of primary respiratory support included ten RCTs (n = 1,676). There were no statistically significant differences for outcomes measuring efficacy, including the primary outcome. There were statistically significant differences favoring HHHFNC versus nasal cannula positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for air leak (post-extubation, risk ratio [RR] 0.29, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.76, I2 = 0) and nasal trauma (post-extubation: 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.27 to 0.46, I2 = 5 percent; primary respiratory support: RR 0.52, 95 percent CI 0.37 to 0.74; I2 = 27 percent). Studies, particularly those of primary respiratory support, included very few preterm infants with gestational age (GA) <28 weeks.ConclusionsHHHFNC may offer an efficacious and safe alternative to NCPAP for some infants but evidence is lacking for preterm infants with GA ≤28 weeks.

1093: PALLIATIVE HIGH-FLOW NASAL CANNULA IN ACUTE RESPIRATORY FAILURE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 530-530
Author(s):  
Aniket Mittal ◽  
Abdul Majzoub ◽  
Ognjen Gajic ◽  
Hassan Murad ◽  
Michael Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula

scholarly journals Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in postoperative patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e027523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhonghua Lu ◽  
Wei Chang ◽  
Shan-Shan Meng ◽  
Xiwen Zhang ◽  
Jianfeng Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
Number Of Patients

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on the reintubation rate, rate of escalation of respiratory support and clinical outcomes in postextubation adult surgical patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Index and Wan fang databases were searched up to August 2018.Eligibility criteriaStudies in postoperative adult surgical patients (≥18 years), receiving HFNC or COT applied immediately after extubation that reported reintubation, escalation of respiratory support, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) and mortality were eligible for inclusion.Data extraction and synthesisThe following data were extracted from the included studies: first author’s name, year of publication, study population, country of origin, study design, number of patients, patients’ baseline characteristics and outcomes. Associations were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 10 studies (1327 patients). HFNC significantly reduced the reintubation rate (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61, p<0.0001) and rate of escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.73, p=0.002) in postextubation surgical patients compared with COT. There were no differences in the incidence of PPCs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08, p=0.21) or mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.29, p=0.14).ConclusionHFNC is associated with a significantly lower reintubation rate and rate of escalation of respiratory support compared with COT in postextubation adult surgical patients, but there is no difference in the incidence of PPCs or mortality. More well-designed, large randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the subpopulation of patients who are most likely to benefit from HFNC therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document