Browse the corpus

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients. BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients. BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adult patients experiencing acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVES: We evaluated studies that included participants 16 years of age and older who were admitted to the ICU and required treatment with HFNC. We assessed the safety and efficacy of HFNC compared with comparator interventions in terms of treatment failure, mortality, adverse events, duration of respiratory support, hospital and ICU length of stay, respiratory effects, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Web of Science, proceedings from four conferences, and clinical trials registries; and we handsearched reference lists of relevant studies. We conducted searches from January 2000 to March 2016 and reran the searches in December 2016. We added four new studies of potential interest to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies with a parallel or cross-over design comparing HFNC use in adult ICU patients versus other forms of non-invasive respiratory support (low-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae or mask, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 1972 participants. Participants in six studies had respiratory failure, and in five studies required oxygen therapy after extubation. Ten studies compared HFNC versus low-flow oxygen devices; one of these also compared HFNC versus CPAP, and another compared HFNC versus BiPAP alone. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately and provided inconsistent details of outcome assessor blinding. We did not combine data for CPAP and BiPAP comparisons with data for low-flow oxygen devices; study data were insufficient for separate analysis of CPAP and BiPAP for most outcomes. For the primary outcomes of treatment failure (1066 participants; six studies) and mortality (755 participants; three studies), investigators found no differences between HFNC and low-flow oxygen therapies (risk ratio (RR), Mantel-Haenszel (MH), random-effects 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.27; and RR, MH, random-effects 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06, respectively). We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of this evidence to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. Reported adverse events included nosocomial pneumonia, oxygen desaturation, visits to general practitioner for respiratory complications, pneumothorax, acute pseudo-obstruction, cardiac dysrhythmia, septic shock, and cardiorespiratory arrest. However, single studies reported adverse events, and we could not combine these findings; one study reported fewer episodes of oxygen desaturation with HFNC but no differences in all other reported adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for adverse events to low because of limited data. Researchers noted no differences in ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), inverse variance (IV), random-effects 0.15, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.34; four studies; 770 participants), and we downgraded quality to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. We found no differences in oxygenation variables: partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (MD, IV, random-effects 7.31, 95% CI -23.69 to 41.31; four studies; 510 participants); PaO2 (MD, IV, random-effects 2.79, 95% CI -5.47 to 11.05; three studies; 355 participants); and oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects 0.72, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.17; four studies; 512 participants). Data from two studies showed that oxygen saturation measured after 24 hours was improved among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects 1.28, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.55; 445 participants), but this difference was small and was not clinically significant. Along with concern about risks of bias and differences in participant indications, review authors noted a high level of unexplained statistical heterogeneity in oxygenation effect estimates, and we downgraded the quality of evidence to very low. Meta-analysis of three comparable studies showed no differences in carbon dioxide clearance among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects -0.75, 95% CI -2.04 to 0.55; three studies; 590 participants). Two studies reported no differences in atelectasis; we did not combine these findings. Data from six studies (867 participants) comparing HFNC versus low-flow oxygen showed no differences in respiratory rates up to 24 hours according to type of oxygen delivery device (MD, IV, random-effects -1.51, 95% CI -3.36 to 0.35), and no difference after 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects -2.71, 95% CI -7.12 to 1.70; two studies; 445 participants). Improvement in respiratory rates when HFNC was compared with CPAP or BiPAP was not clinically important (MD, IV, random-effects -0.89, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.05; two studies; 834 participants). Results showed no differences in patient-reported measures of comfort according to oxygen delivery devices in the short term (MD, IV, random-effects 0.14, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.93; three studies; 462 participants) and in the long term (MD, IV, random-effects -0.36, 95% CI -3.70 to 2.98; two studies; 445 participants); we downgraded the certainty of this evidence to low. Six studies measured dyspnoea on incomparable scales, yielding inconsistent study data. No study in this review provided data on positive end-expiratory pressure measured at the pharyngeal level, work of breathing, or cost comparisons of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to demonstrate whether HFNC was a more effective or safe oxygen delivery device compared with other oxygenation devices in adult ICU patients. Meta-analysis could be performed for few studies for each outcome, and data for comparisons with CPAP or BiPAP were very limited. In addition, we identified some risks of bias among included studies, differences in patient groups, and high levels of statistical heterogeneity for some outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the results of our analysis. Consequently, evidence is insufficient to show whether HFNC provides safe and efficacious respiratory support for adult ICU patients.