4.6 Review

High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 563-572

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05590-5

Keywords

Respiratory failure; High flow nasal cannula; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy. We pooled data and report summary estimates of effect using relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference or standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane tool and certainty in pooled effect estimates using GRADE methods.ResultsWe included 9 RCTs (n=2093 patients). We found no difference in mortality in patients treated with HFNC (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.31, moderate certainty) compared to conventional oxygen therapy. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.99) or escalation of oxygen therapy (defined as crossover to HFNC in the control group, or initiation of non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation in either group) favouring HFNC-treated patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98), although certainty in both outcomes was low due to imprecision and issues related to risk of bias. HFNC had no effect on intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference [MD] 1.38days more, 95% CI 0.90days fewer to 3.66days more, low certainty), hospital length of stay (MD 0.85days fewer, 95% CI 2.07days fewer to 0.37days more, moderate certainty), patient reported comfort (SMD 0.12 lower, 95% CI 0.61 lower to 0.37 higher, very low certainty) or patient reported dyspnea (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16 lower, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.42 higher, low certainty). Complications of treatment were variably reported amongst included studies, but little harm was associated with HFNC use.ConclusionIn patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation without impacting mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available