ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in post-extubation intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP Databases were searched for all published available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies about HFNC therapy in post-extubation ICU patients. The control group was treated with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), while the experimental group was treated with HFNC. Two reviewers separately searched the articles, evaluated the quality of the literatures, extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan5.3 was used for meta-analysis. The main outcome measurements included reintubation rate and length of ICU stay. The secondary outcomes included ICU mortality and hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP) rate.ResultsA total of 20 articles were enrolled. There were 3 583 patients enrolled, with 1 727 patients in HFNC group, and 1 856 patients in control group (841 patients with COT, and 1 015 with NIPPV). Meta-analysis showed that HFNC had a significant advantage over COT in reducing the reintubation rate of patients with postextubation (P<0.000 01), but there was no significant difference as compared with that of NIPPV (P=0.21). It was shown by pooled analysis of two subgroups that compared with COT/NIPPV, HFNC had a significant advantage in reducing reintubation rate in patients of postextubation (P<0.000 01). There was no significant difference in ICU mortality between HFNC and COT (P=0.38) or NIPPV (P=0.36). There was no significant difference in length of ICU stay between HFNC and COT (P=0.30), but there had a significant advantage in length of ICU stay between HFNC and NIPPV (P<0.000 01). It was shown by pooled analysis of two subgroups that compared with COT/NIPPV, HFNC had a significant advantage in length of ICU stay (P=0.04). There was no significant difference in HAP rate between HFNC and COT (P=0.61) or NIPPV (P=0.23).ConclusionsThere is a significant advantage to decrease reintubation rate between HFNC and COT, but there is no significant difference in ICU mortality, length of ICU stay or HAP rate. There is a significant advantage to decrease length of ICU stay between HFNC and NIPPV, but there is no significant difference in ICU mortality, reintubation rate or HAP rate.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCT) or cohort studies on the efficacy of high-flow oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure were reviewed by computer in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and China Knowledge Network, Wanfang and VIP databases. The group used HFNC and the control group used a mask or a nasal catheter to give oxygen-based conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Two investigators conducted quality assessments and data extractions based on the Cochrane Collaboration Risk Assessment Manual and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. The main outcome measures included tracheal intubation rate, and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. The secondary outcomes included ICU hospitalization time.ResultsThe study included 13 articles (4 RCTs, 9 cohort studies), a total of 1133 subjects, with 583 in the HFNC group and 550 in the control group (280 in the COT and 270 in the NIV). Meta-analysis showed that HFNC was significantly different from COT in reducing tracheal intubation rate in immunocompromised patients with respiratory failure (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.33 - 0.72, P=0.0003), but no statistical significance compared with NIV (OR=0.73, 95%CI 0.52 - 1.02, P=0.07); two-combination analysis showed that HFNC had a significant advantage in reducing tracheal intubation rate compared with COT/NIV (combined OR=0.61, 95%CI 0.47 - 0.79, P=0.0002). In terms of ICU mortality, there was a statistically significant difference between HFNC and COT (OR=0.59, 95%CI 0.35 - 1.01, P=0.05) or NIV (OR=0.63, 95%CI 0.44 - 0.91, P=0.01). The results of the two subcombinations and analysis did not change (combined OR=0.62, 95%CI 0.46 - 0.83, P=0.002). In terms of ICU hospital stay, there was no statistically significant difference between HFNC and COT (MD=−4.52, 95%CI −9.43 - 0.39, P=0.07), but the difference was statistically significant compared with NIV (MD=−1.46, 95%CI −2.41 - −0.51, P =0.003); the two sub-combinations and analysis results showed significant difference (combined MD=−3.41, 95%CI −6.16 - −0.66, P=0.01). According to different research types, after subgroup analysis, the analysis results were not different from the combined results. Sensitivity analysis revealed that HFNC could significantly reduce the patient's ICU hospital stay compared with the control group oxygen therapy. The results of the funnel chart analysis show that there were publication offsets in the studies on tracheal intubation rate and ICU mortality included in the literature; studies on ICU hospital stays had a smaller publication offset.ConclusionsCompared with COT, HFNC can reduce the tracheal intubation rate of patients, but there is no significant difference compared with NIV; HFNC can reduce the ICU mortality of patients compared with COT/NIV. However, due to the high heterogeneity between the studies, whether HFNC can reduce ICU hospital stay remains to be further explored.
ObjectiveTo compare the therapeutic effects of invasive-high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC) and invasive-non-invasive ventilation (NIV) sequential strategies on severe respiratory failure caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and explore the feasibility of HFNC after extubation from invasive ventilation for COPD patients with severe respiratory failure.MethodsFrom October 2017 to October 2019, COPD patients with type Ⅱ respiratory failure who received invasive ventilation were randomly assigned to a HFNC group and a NIV group at 1: 1 in intensive care unit (ICU), when pulmonary infection control window appeared after treatments. The patients in the HFNC group received HFNC, while the patients in the NIV group received NIV after extubation. The primary endpoint was treatment failure rate. The secondary endpoints were blood gas analysis and vital signs at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours after extubation, total respiratory support time after extubation, daily airway care interventions, comfort scores, and incidence of nasal and facial skin lesions, ICU length of stay, total length of stay and 28-day mortality after extubation.ResultsOne hundred and twelve patients were randomly assigned to the HFNC group and the NIV group. After secondary exclusion, 53 patients and 52 patients in the HFNC group and the NIV group were included in the analysis respectively. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 22.6%, which was lower than the 28.8% in the NIV group. The risk difference of the failure rate between the two groups was –6.2% (95%CI –22.47 - 10.43, P=0.509), which was significantly lower than the non-inferior effect of 9%. Analysis of the causes of treatment failure showed that treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group, with a risk difference of –38.4% (95%CI –62.5 - –3.6, P=0.043). One hour after extubation, the respiratory rate of both groups increased higher than the baseline level before extubation (P<0.05). 24 hours after extubation, the respiratory rate in the HFNC group decreased to the baseline level, but the respiratory rate in the NIV group was still higher than the baseline level, and the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group [(19.1±3.8) vs. (21.7±4.5) times per minute, P<0.05]. 48 hours after extubation, the respiratory rates in the two groups were not significantly different from their baseline levels. The average daily airway care intervention in the NIV group was 9 (5 - 12) times, which was significantly higher than the 5 (4 - 7) times in the HFNC group (P=0.006). The comfort score of the HFNC group was significantly higher than that of the NIV group (8.6±3.2 vs. 5.7±2.8, P= 0.022), while the incidence of nasal and facial skin lesions in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (0 vs. 9.6%, P=0.027). There was no significant difference in dyspnea score, length of stay and 28-day mortality between the two groups.ConclusionsThe efficacy of invasive-HFNC sequential treatment on COPD with severe respiratory failure is not inferior to that of invasive-NIV sequential strategy. The two groups have similar treatment failure rates, and HFNC has better comfort and treatment tolerance.
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) induced by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Sixty-eight patients with ARDS induced by COVID-19 in Wuhan Concorde Red Cross Hospital form January 25, 2020 to March 10, 2020 were included in the study. They were divided into an HFNC group (n=36) and an NIV group (n=36) according to the treatment. All patients received basic routine treatment, antiviral treatment and prevention therapy of secondary infection. The HFNC group received high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, and the NIV group received NIV therapy. Then respiration and circulation parameters, comfort and tolerance, complications were compared between the two groups. Results After treatment for 3 days, 1 week, and 2 weeks in all patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS, respiratory rate (RR) was lower than that before therapy, arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), PaO2/FiO2 were higher than those before therapy (P<0.05), and therapeutic effect was time-dependent. But there was no significant difference of RR, PaO2, SpO2, PaO2/FiO2 between the HFNC group and the NIV group at different time points (P>0.05). After treatment for 2 weeks, the HFNC group patients' comfort, difficulty breathing, tolerance score were lower than the NIV group (P<0.05, P<0.01), the incidence rate of gastric distension and dry mouth etc. was lower than that in the NIV group (11.11% vs. 37.50%, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in rate of invasive mechanical ventilation or mortality between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions HFNC and NIV can improve respiratory and circulatory parameters of patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS. HFNC has better comfort and tolerance, and can reduce related complications.
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy, which is important in noninvasive respiratory support, is increasingly being used in critically ill neonates with respiratory failure because it is comfortable, easy to set up, and has a low incidence of nasal trauma. The advantages, indications, and risks of HFNC have been the focus of research in recent years, resulting in the development of the application. Based on current evidence, we developed guidelines for HFNC in neonates using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). The guideline was formulated after extensive consultations with neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurse specialists, and evidence-based medicine experts. We have proposed 24 recommendations for 9 key questions. This guideline aims to be a source of evidence and references of HFNC oxygen therapy in clinical practice, and so that more neonates and their families will benefit from HFNC.
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical value of prophylactic high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in reducing postoperative pulmonary complication (PPC) in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The clinical data of elderly patients (over 60 years) with NSCLC who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmental resection at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Fujian Provincial Hospital from January 2021 to March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether receiving HFNC after surgery, they were divided into a conventional oxygen therapy (CO) group and a HFNC group. The CO group were matched with the HFNC group by the propensity score matching method at a ratio of 1 : 1. We compared PPC incidence, white blood cell (WBC) count, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein on postoperative day (POD) 1, 3 and 5 and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. ResultsA total of 343 patients (165 males, 178 females, average age of 67.25±4.79 years) were enrolled, with 53 (15.45%) receiving HFNC. Before matching, there were statistical differences in gender, rate of combined chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pathology type and TNM stage between the two groups (all P<0.05). There were 42 patients successfully matched in each of the two groups, with no statistical difference in baseline characteristics (P>0.05). After propensity score matching, the results showed that the PPC incidence in the HFNC group was lower than that in the CO group (23.81% vs. 45.23%, P=0.039). WBC count on POD 3 and 5 and procalcitonin level on POD 3 were less or lower in the HFNC group than those in the CO group [ (8.92±2.91)×109/L vs. (10.62±2.67)×109/L; (7.68±1.58)×109/L vs. (8.86±1.76)×109/L; 0.26 (0.25, 0.44) μg/L vs. 0.31 (0.25, 0.86) μg/L; all P<0.05]. There was no statistical difference in the other inflammatory indexes or the postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Prophylactic HFNC can reduce the PPC incidence and postoperative inflammatory indexes in elderly patients with NSCLC, but does not shorten the postoperative hospital stay.