Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to noninvasive mechanical ventilation on intubation rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2017
Overview
Background
High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is a relatively new therapy used in adults with respiratory failure. Whether it is superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether HFNC was superior to either COT or NIV in adult acute respiratory failure patients.
Methods
A review of the literature was conducted from the electronic databases from inception up to 20 October 2016. Only randomized clinical trials comparing HFNC with COT or HFNC with NIV were included. The intubation rate was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included the mechanical ventilation rate, the rate of escalation of respiratory support and mortality.
Results
Eleven studies that enrolled 3459 patients (HFNC,
n
= 1681) were included. There were eight studies comparing HFNC with COT, two comparing HFNC with NIV, and one comparing all three. HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79,
P
= 0.002), mechanical ventilation rate (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.97,
P
= 0.04) and the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67,
P
< 0.0001) when compared to COT. There was no difference in mortality between HFNC and COT utilization (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53,
P
= 0.96). When HFNC was compared to NIV, there was no difference in the intubation rate (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39,
P
= 0.84), the rate of escalation of respiratory support (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28,
P
= 0.97) or mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.68,
P
= 0.65).
Conclusions
Compared to COT, HFNC reduced the rate of intubation, mechanical ventilation and the escalation of respiratory support. When compared to NIV, HFNC showed no better outcomes. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are necessary to prove our findings.
Trial registration
PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews on May 25, 2016 registration no.
CRD42016039581
.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
/ Cannula - statistics & numerical data
/ Conventional oxygen therapy (COT)
/ High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC)
/ Humans
/ Intensive Care Units - organization & administration
/ Medicine
/ Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV)
/ Noninvasive Ventilation - methods
/ Noninvasive Ventilation - standards
