Advertisement

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

  • B. RochwergEmail author
  • D. Granton
  • D. X. Wang
  • Y. Helviz
  • S. Einav
  • J. P. Frat
  • A. Mekontso-Dessap
  • A. Schreiber
  • E. Azoulay
  • A. Mercat
  • A. Demoule
  • V. Lemiale
  • A. Pesenti
  • E. D. Riviello
  • T. Mauri
  • J. Mancebo
  • L. Brochard
  • K. Burns
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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] 1.38 days more, 95% CI 0.90 days fewer to 3.66 days more, low certainty), hospital length of stay (MD 0.85 days fewer, 95% CI 2.07 days fewer to 0.37 days 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.

Conclusion

In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation without impacting mortality.

Keywords

Respiratory failure High flow nasal cannula Meta-analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Iris Arad for her help with the search strategy and running the search.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Einav has received funding for travel, given lectures, owns patents with and/or performed consultancy work for Zoll, Medtronic and Diasorin, has participated in multicentre trials run by Artisanpharma, Eisai and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Frat reports grants from the French Ministry of Health; grants, personal fees and non- financial support from Fisher & Paykel HeathCare; personal fees and non-financial support from SOS oxygene, outside the submitted work. Dr. Azoulay reports that Fisher & Payckle provided the optiflow device for the HIGH trial (to all the centers). They also provided support to my research group to organize research meetings. He also provides lectures for Alexion Baxter MSD Pfizer and Ablynx. Dr. Mercat receives fees for serving on a steering committee from Faron Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees from Air Liquide Medical Systems, grant support and lecture fees from Fisher and Paykel and Covidien, and lecture fees from Pfizer, ResMed, and Drager. Dr. Demoule reports personal fees from Medtronic, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Philips, personal fees from Baxter, personal fees from Hamilton, grants and personal fees from Fisher & Paykel, grants from French Ministry of Health, personal fees from Getinge, personal fees from Respinor, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lemiale reports grants from the French Ministry of Health. The research group (GRRR-OH) she belongs to received financial support from Fisher & Paykel HeathCare; Pfizer, Gilead, Astellas And Alexion, outside this submitted work. Prof. Antonio Pesenti received consulting honorarium from Xenion, Maquet and Baxter outside the present work. He is also an inventor of patented devices for respiratory support and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal. Dr. Mauri received speaking fees from Fisher and Paykel unrelated to the present work. Dr. Mancebo reports receiving personal fees from Faron and Medtronic. Fisher Paykel and A-Lung provided medical equipment for multicenter trials (high flow nasal oxygen therapy and extracorporeal CO2 removal respectively). IMT Medical provided travel and hotel expenses to attend a meeting. Dr. Brochard’s laboratory has received equipment and/or research grants from Fisher Paykel (high-flow), Medtronic Covidien (PAV+), Air Liquide (Helium, CPR), Philips (sleep), Sentec (tcPCO2), General Electric (ultrasound) and consulting from Baxter. Dr. Burns received a grant from Fisher & Paykel to conduct an observational study.

Ethical approval

An approval by an ethics committee was not applicable

Supplementary material

134_2019_5590_MOESM1_ESM.docx (533 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 532 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Antonelli M, Conti G, Rocco M et al (1998) A comparison of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. New Engl J Med 339(7):429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrillo A, Gonzalez-Diaz G, Ferrer M et al (2012) Non-invasive ventilation in community-acquired pneumonia and severe acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 38(3):458–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delclaux C, L’Her E, Alberti C et al (2000) Treatment of acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory insufficiency with continuous positive airway pressure delivered by a face mask: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 284(18):2352–2360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hilbert G, Gruson D, Vargas F et al (2000) Noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in neutropenic patients with acute respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit admission. Crit Care Med 28(9):3185–3190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang Y, Fang C, Dong BR et al (2012) Oxygen therapy for pneumonia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006607Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu XP, Zhang XC, Hu SL et al (2017) Noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 45(7):e727–e733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bello G, De Pascale G, Antonelli M (2016) Noninvasive ventilation. Clin Chest Med 37(4):711–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW et al (2017) Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J 50(2):1602426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ni YN, Luo J, Yu H et al (2017) Can high-flow nasal cannula reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation in adult patients with acute respiratory failure compared with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 151(4):764–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang HW, Sun XM, Shi ZH et al (2018) Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation on reintubation rate in adult patients after extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Intensive Care Med 33(11):609–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee CC, Mankodi D, Shaharyar S et al (2016) High flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review. Respir Med 121:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maitra S, Som A, Bhattacharjee S et al (2016) Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Crit Care 35:138–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhao H, Wang H, Sun F et al (2017) 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. Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 21(1):184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Azoulay E, Lemiale V, Mokart D et al (2018) Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen vs standard oxygen on 28-Day mortality in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: the HIGH randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320(20):2099–2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    RIsk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (2018) cited 2018 September 30, 2018. http://www.evidencepartners.com/resources/methodological-resources/risk-of-bias-commentary/
  16. 16.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clin Res ed) 336(7650):924–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins JP (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Makdee O, Monsomboon A, Surabenjawong U et al (2017) High-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy in emergency department patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med 70(4):465–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lemiale V, Mokart D, Mayaux J et al (2015) The effects of a 2-h trial of high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula versus Venturi mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized trial. Crit Care (Lond, Engl) 19:380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wetterslev J, Jakobsen JC, Gluud C (2017) Trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 17(1):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Azoulay E, Lemiale V, Mokart D et al (2018) Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen vs standard oxygen on 28-Day mortality in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: the high randomized clinical trial. JAMA 320(20):2099–2107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bell N, Hutchinson CL, Green TC et al (2015) Randomised control trial of humidified high flow nasal cannulae versus standard oxygen in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas EMA 27(6):537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A et al (2015) High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. New Engl J Med 372(23):2185–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones PG, Kamona S, Doran O et al (2016) Randomized controlled trial of humidified high-flow nasal oxygen for acute respiratory distress in the emergency department: the HOT-ER study. Respir Care 61(3):291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parke RL, McGuinness SP, Eccleston ML (2011) A preliminary randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness of nasal high-flow oxygen in intensive care patients. Respir Care 56(3):265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rittayamai N, Tscheikuna J, Praphruetkit N et al (2015) Use of high-flow nasal cannula for acute dyspnea and hypoxemia in the emergency department. Respir Care 60(10):1377–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwabbauer N, Berg B, Blumenstock G et al (2014) Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). BMC Anesthesiol 14:66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Doshi P, Whittle JS, Bublewicz M, Kearney J, Ashe T, Graham R, Salazar S, Ellis TW, Jr., Maynard D, Dennis R, Tillotson A, Hill M, Granado M, Gordon N, Dunlap C, Spivey S, Miller TL (2018) High-velocity nasal insufflation in the treatment of respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med 72:73–83.e75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brochard L, Slutsky A, Pesenti A (2017) Mechanical ventilation to minimize progression of lung injury in acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 195(4):438–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mauri T, Alban L, Turrini C et al (2017) Optimum support by high-flow nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: effects of increasing flow rates. Intensive Care Med 43(10):1453–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Rochwerg
    • 1
    • 2
    • 22
    Email author
  • D. Granton
    • 1
  • D. X. Wang
    • 3
  • Y. Helviz
    • 4
  • S. Einav
    • 4
    • 5
  • J. P. Frat
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
  • A. Mekontso-Dessap
    • 9
    • 10
  • A. Schreiber
    • 11
  • E. Azoulay
    • 12
    • 13
  • A. Mercat
    • 14
  • A. Demoule
    • 15
    • 16
  • V. Lemiale
    • 12
    • 13
  • A. Pesenti
    • 17
    • 18
  • E. D. Riviello
    • 19
  • T. Mauri
    • 17
    • 18
  • J. Mancebo
    • 20
  • L. Brochard
    • 21
  • K. Burns
    • 21
  1. 1.Michael G. De Groote School of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and ImpactMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Schulich School of MedicineWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  4. 4.General Intensive Care UnitShaare Zedek Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
  5. 5.Faculty of MedicineHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  6. 6.CHU de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive RéanimationPoitiersFrance
  7. 7.INSERM, CIC-1402, équipe ALIVEPoitiersFrance
  8. 8.Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie de PoitiersUniversité de PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  9. 9.Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri MondorCréteilFrance
  10. 10.Université ParisCréteilFrance
  11. 11.Department of Medicine, Division of RespirologyUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  12. 12.Hôpital Saint-LouisParisFrance
  13. 13.Center of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsParis Diderot Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance
  14. 14.Département de Médecine Intensive-RéanimationCHU d’Angers, Université d’AngersAngersFrance
  15. 15.Service de Pneumologie et Réanimation Médicale du Département R3SAP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière Charles FoixParisFrance
  16. 16.Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et CliniqueSorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS1158ParisFrance
  17. 17.Università degli Studi di MilanoDipartimento di Fisopatologia Medico-Chirurgica e dei TrapiantiMilanItaly
  18. 18.Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  19. 19.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep MedicineBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  20. 20.Servei de Medicina IntensivaHospital Universitari Sant PauBarcelonaSpain
  21. 21.Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  22. 22.Department of Medicine, Division of Critical CareJuravinski HospitalHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations