Dataset Information

Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute heart failure (AHF) is often associated with diffuse insufficiency and arterial hypoxemia, requiring respiratory support for rapid and effective correction. We aimed to compare the effects of high-flow nasal cannula(HFNC) with those of conventional oxygen therapy(COT) or non-invasive ventilation(NIV) on the prognosis of patients with AHF.

Methods

We performed the search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from the inception to August 31, 2023 for relevant studies in English and Chinese. We included controlled studies comparing HFNC with COT or NIV in patients with AHF. Primary outcomes included the intubation rate, respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and oxygenation status.

Results

From the 1288 original papers identified, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 1333 patients were included. Compared with COT, HFNC reduced the intubation rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.58, P = 0.0005), RR (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.73 95% CI: -0.99 - -0.47, P < 0.00001) and HR (SMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -1.07 - -0.69, P < 0.00001), and hospital stay (SMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -1.76 - -0.12, P = 0.03), and increase arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO₂), (SMD: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.70-1.06, P < 0.00001) and oxygen saturation (SpO₂ [%], SMD: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.34-1.06, P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in intubation rate, RR, HR, arterial blood gas parameters, and dyspnea scores between the HFNC and NIV groups. Compared with COT, HFNC effectively reduced the intubation rate and provided greater clinical benefits to patients with AHF. However, there was no significant difference in the clinical prognosis of patients with AHF between the HFNC and NIV groups.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42022365611).

SUBMITTER: Yan L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10685599 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yan Liming L Lu Ye Y Deng Mingming M Zhang Qin Q Bian Yiding Y Zhou Xiaoming X Hou Gang G

BMC pulmonary medicine 20231128 1

<h4>Background</h4>Acute heart failure (AHF) is often associated with diffuse insufficiency and arterial hypoxemia, requiring respiratory support for rapid and effective correction. We aimed to compare the effects of high-flow nasal cannula(HFNC) with those of conventional oxygen therapy(COT) or non-invasive ventilation(NIV) on the prognosis of patients with AHF.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed the search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP dat ...[more]

PMID: 38017474

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in hypoxemic respiratory failure are widely recognized, it is yet unclear whether HFNC can effectively reduce the intubation rate and mortality in hypercapnic respiratory failure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficiency of HFNC in these patients.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) was carried out. Two reviewers independently screened all references according to the inclusion criteria. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, respectively. Data from eligible trials were extracted for the meta-analysis.ResultsEight studies with a total of 621 participants were included (six RCTs and two cohort studies). Our analysis showed that HFNC is noninferior to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with respect to intubation rate in both RCTs (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.45-1.88) and cohort studies (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.62). Similarly, the analysis of cohort studies showed no difference in reducing mortality rates (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.42-2.20). Based on RCTs, NIV seemed more effective in reducing mortality (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.68-2.60), but the intertreatment difference was not statistically signiﬁcant. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between HFNC and NIV relating to change of blood gas analysis or respiratory rate (MD = -0.75, 95% CI: -2.6 to 1.09). Likewise, no significant intergroup differences were found with regard to intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.11). Due to a physiological friendly interface and variation, HFNC showed a significant advantage over NIV in patients' comfort and complication of therapy.ConclusionDespite the limitations noted, HFNC may be an effective and safe alternative to prevent endotracheal intubation and mortality when NIV is unsuitable in mild-to-moderate hypercapnia. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate these findings.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on intubation rate, 28-day intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs) and ICU length of stay (ICU LOS) in adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) associated with COVID-19.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase up to June 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesOnly randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19 were included up to June 2022. Studies conducted on children or pregnant women, and those not published in English were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Relevant information was extracted and curated in the tables. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 computer software using a random effects model with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test (χ2) and Higgins I2 statistics, with subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity.ResultsNine studies involving 3370 (1480 received HFNC) were included. HFNC reduced the intubation rate compared with COT (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, p=0.0007), decreased 28-day ICU mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97, p=0.04) and improved 28-day VFDs (mean difference (MD) 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.45, p<0.00001). However, HFNC had no effect on ICU LOS versus COT (MD 0.52, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.06, p=0.50).ConclusionsOur study indicates that HFNC may reduce intubation rate and 28-day ICU mortality, and improve 28-day VFDs in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 compared with COT. Large-scale randomised controlled trials are necessary to validate our findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42022345713.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been proven effective in improving patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but a discussion of its use for initial flow settings still need to be provided. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and comfort evaluation of HFNC with different initial flow settings in patients with AHRF.MethodsStudies published by October 10, 2022, were searched exhaustively in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with STATA 17.0 and R software (version 4.2.1). A Bayesian framework was applied for this NMA. Comparisons of competing models based on the deviance information criterion (DIC) were used to select the best model for NMA. The primary outcome is the intubation at day 28. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term mortality, comfort score, length of ICU or hospital stay, and 24-h PaO2/FiO2.ResultsThis NMA included 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5774 patients. With NIV as the control, the HFNC_high group was significantly associated with lower intubation rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.56 to 0.93; moderate quality evidence) and short-term mortality (OR 0.81 95% CrI 0.69 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence). Using HFNC_Moderate (Mod) group (mean difference [MD] - 1.98 95% CrI -3.98 to 0.01; very low quality evidence) as a comparator, the HFNC_Low group had a slight advantage in comfort scores but no statistically significant difference. Of all possible interventions, the HFNC_High group had the highest probability of being the best in reducing intubation rates (73.04%), short-term (82.74%) and long-term mortality (67.08%). While surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA) indicated that the HFNC_Low group had the highest probability of being the best in terms of comfort scores.ConclusionsThe high initial flow settings (50-60 L/min) performed better in decreasing the occurrence of intubation and mortality, albeit with poor comfort scores. Treatment of HFNC for AHRF patients ought to be initiated from moderate flow rates (30-40 L/min), and individualized flow settings can make HFNC more sensible in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 remains uncertain. We aimed at assessing whether HFNC is associated with reduced risk of intubation or mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing HFNC vs. COT in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, published in English from inception to December 2022. Pediatric studies, studies that compared HFNC with a noninvasive respiratory support other than COT and those in which intubation or mortality were not reported were excluded. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analysis were performed according to statistical heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were risk of intubation and mortality across RCTs. Effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios and 95% confidence interval (RR; 95% CI). Observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses.ResultsTwenty studies were analyzed, accounting for 8383 patients, including 6 RCTs (2509 patients) and 14 observational studies (5874 patients). By pooling the 6 RCTs, HFNC compared with COT significantly reduced the risk of intubation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; p = 0.02) and reduced length of stay in hospital. HFNC did not significantly reduce the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; p = 0.40).ConclusionsIn patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, HFNC reduced the need for intubation and shortened length of stay in hospital without significant decreased risk of mortality. Trial registration The study was registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ with the trial registration number CRD42022340035 (06/20/2022).

Project description:BackgroundNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive pressure ventilation is a first-line intervention for selected patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIV may reduce endotracheal intubation, death, and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), but its use is often limited by patient tolerance and treatment failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a potential alternative treatment in this patient population and may be better tolerated.Research questionFor patients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, is HFNC an effective alternative to NIV in reducing the need for intubation?MethodsWe searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane library from database inception through to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adults with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure assigned to receive HFNC or NIV. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess risk of bias. We calculated pooled relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.ResultsWe included eight RCTs (n = 528) in the final analysis. The use of HFNC compared to NIV did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48-1.56, low certainty), or our secondary outcomes including endotracheal intubation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.39, low certainty), or hospital LOS (MD - 0.82 days, 95% CI - 1.83-0.20, high certainty). There was no difference in change in partial pressure of carbon dioxide between groups (MD - 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI - 5.34-1.60, moderate certainty).InterpretationThe current body of evidence is limited in determining whether HFNC may be either superior, inferior, or equivalent to NIV for patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure given imprecision and study heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to better understand the effect of HFNC on this population.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) may be an attractive first-line ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients. However, HNFC use for the management of COVID-19 patients and risk factors for HFNC failure remain to be determined.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we included all consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first (Mars-May 2020) and second (August 2020- February 202) French pandemic waves. Patients with limitations for intubation were excluded. HFNC failure was defined as the need for intubation after ICU admission. The impact of HFNC use was analyzed in the whole cohort and after constructing a propensity score. Risk factors for HNFC failure were identified through a landmark time-dependent cause-specific Cox model. The ability of the 6-h ROX index to detect HFNC failure was assessed by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Results200 patients were included: HFNC was used in 114(57%) patients, non-invasive ventilation in 25(12%) patients and 145(72%) patients were intubated with a median delay of 0 (0-2) days after ICU admission. Overall, 78(68%) patients had HFNC failure. Patients with HFNC failure had a higher ICU mortality rate (34 vs. 11%, p = 0.02) than those without. At landmark time of 48 and 72 h, SAPS-2 score, extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75% and HFNC duration (cause specific hazard ratio (CSH) = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04-0.28), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 48 h and CSH = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.23), per + 1 day, p < 0.001 at 72 h) were associated with HFNC failure. The 6-h ROX index was lower in patients with HFNC failure but could not reliably predicted HFNC failure with an area under ROC curve of 0.65 (95% CI(0.52-0.78), p = 0.02). In the matched cohort, HFNC use was associated with a lower risk of intubation (CSH = 0.32, 95% CI (0.19-0.57), p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn critically-ill COVID-19 patients, while HFNC use as first-line ventilatory support was associated with a lower risk of intubation, more than half of patients had HFNC failure. Risk factors for HFNC failure were SAPS-2 score and extent of CT-Scan abnormalities > 75%. The risk of HFNC failure could not be predicted by the 6-h ROX index but decreased after a 48-h HFNC duration.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets