Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
High-flow nasal oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in hospitalised patients with respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Seow, Daniel; Khor, Yet H; Khung, Su-Wei; Smallwood, David M; Ng, Yvonne; Pascoe, Amy; Smallwood, Natasha.
Afiliação
  • Seow D; Department of Internal Medicine, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore.
  • Khor YH; Respiratory Research@Alfred, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Khung SW; Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
  • Smallwood DM; Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
  • Ng Y; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Western Health, Footscray, Victoria, Australia.
  • Pascoe A; Department of Medical Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
  • Smallwood N; Monash Lung, Sleep, Allergy and Immunology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
BMJ Open Respir Res ; 11(1)2024 Jul 15.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39009460
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) is used in diverse hospital settings to treat patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence regarding any benefits HFNO therapy has compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients with ARF.

METHODS:

Three databases (Embase, Medline and CENTRAL) were searched on 22 March 2023 for studies evaluating HFNO compared with COT for the treatment of ARF, with the primary outcome being hospital mortality and secondary outcomes including (but not limited to) escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (randomised controlled trials (RCTs)), ROBINS-I (non-randomised trials) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). RCTs and observational studies were pooled together for primary analyses, and secondary analyses used RCT data only. Treatment effects were pooled using the random effects model.

RESULTS:

63 studies (26 RCTs, 13 cross-over and 24 observational studies) were included, with 10 230 participants. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of hospital mortality (risk ratio, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.26; p=0.29; 17 studies, n=5887) between HFNO and COT for all causes ARF. However, compared with COT, HFNO significantly reduced the overall need for escalation to IMV (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95 p=0.003; 39 studies, n=8932); and overall need for escalation to NIV (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; p=0.04; 16 studies, n=3076). In subgroup analyses, when considering patients by illness types, those with acute-on-chronic respiratory failure who received HFNO compared with COT had a significant reduction in-hospital mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02).

DISCUSSION:

HFNO was superior to COT in reducing the need for escalation to both IMV and NIV but had no impact on the primary outcome of hospital mortality. These findings support recommendations that HFNO may be considered as first-line therapy for ARF. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42021264837.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oxigenoterapia / Insuficiência Respiratória / Mortalidade Hospitalar Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Oxigenoterapia / Insuficiência Respiratória / Mortalidade Hospitalar Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article