Association of Home Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation With Clinical Outcomes in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The association of home noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) with outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnia is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the association of home NIPPV via bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) devices and noninvasive home mechanical ventilator (HMV) devices with clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients with COPD and hypercapnia. Data Sources: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and Scopus for English-language articles published from January 1, 1995, to November 6, 2019. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies that enrolled adults with COPD with hypercapnia who used home NIPPV for more than 1 month were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was completed by independent pairs of reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs and select items from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were mortality, all-cause hospital admissions, need for intubation, and quality of life at the longest follow-up. Results: A total of 21 RCTs and 12 observational studies evaluating 51 085 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.7 [2.1] years; 43% women) were included, among whom there were 434 deaths and 27 patients who underwent intubation. BPAP compared with no device was significantly associated with lower risk of mortality (22.31% vs 28.57%; risk difference [RD], -5.53% [95% CI, -10.29% to -0.76%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.87]; P = .003; 13 studies; 1423 patients; strength of evidence [SOE], moderate), fewer patients with all-cause hospital admissions (39.74% vs 75.00%; RD, -35.26% [95% CI, -49.39% to -21.12%]; OR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.11-0.43]; P < .001; 1 study; 166 patients; SOE, low), and lower need for intubation (5.34% vs 14.71%; RD, -8.02% [95% CI, -14.77% to -1.28%]; OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14-0.83]; P = .02; 3 studies; 267 patients; SOE, moderate). There was no significant difference in the total number of all-cause hospital admissions (rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.71-1.17]; P = .47; 5 studies; 326 patients; SOE, low) or quality of life (standardized mean difference, 0.16 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.39]; P = .15; 9 studies; 833 patients; SOE, insufficient). Noninvasive HMV use compared with no device was significantly associated with fewer all-cause hospital admissions (rate ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.35-0.71]; P < .001; 1 study; 93 patients; SOE, low), but not mortality (21.84% vs 34.09%; RD, -11.99% [95% CI, -24.77% to 0.79%]; OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.29-1.08]; P = .49; 2 studies; 175 patients; SOE, insufficient). There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of adverse events in patients using NIPPV compared with no device (0.18 vs 0.17 per patient; P = .84; 6 studies; 414 patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of patients with COPD and hypercapnia, home BPAP, compared with no device, was associated with lower risk of mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life. Noninvasive HMV, compared with no device, was significantly associated with lower risk of hospital admission, but there was no significant difference in mortality risk. However, the evidence was low to moderate in quality, the evidence on quality of life was insufficient, and the analyses for some outcomes were based on small numbers of studies.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure and Do-Not-Intubate or Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do-not-intubate (DNI) and/or do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018. RESULTS: We included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified. CONCLUSIONS: While HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high-quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

Do-not-intubate orders in patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the rates and variability of do-not-intubate orders in patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of observational studies that enrolled adult patients with acute respiratory failure requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen from inception to 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies evaluating 10,755 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of do-not-intubate orders was 27%. The pooled rate of do-not-intubate orders in studies from North America was 14% (range 9-22%), from Europe was 28% (range 13-58%), and from Asia was 38% (range 9-83%), p = 0.001. Do-not-intubate rates were higher in studies with higher patient age and in studies where do-not-intubate decisions were made without reported patient/family input. There were no significant differences in do-not-intubate orders according to illness severity, observed mortality, malignancy comorbidity, or methodological quality. Rates of do-not-intubate orders increased over time from 9% in 2000-2004 to 32% in 2015-2019. Only 12 studies (46%) reported information about do-not-intubate decision-making processes. Only 4 studies (15%) also reported rates of do-not-resuscitate. CONCLUSIONS: One in four patients with acute respiratory failure (who receive noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen) has a do-not-intubate order. The rate of do-not-intubate orders has increased over time. There is high inter-study variability in do-not-intubate rates-even when accounting for age and illness severity. There is high variability in patient/family involvement in do-not-intubate decision making processes. Few studies reported differences in rates of do-not-resuscitate and do-not-intubate-even though recovery is very different for acute respiratory failure and cardiac arrest.