Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Immunocompromise and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Immunocompromised Patients

Due to higher survival rates with good quality of life, related to new treatments in the fields of oncology, hematology, and transplantation, the number of immunocompromised patients is increasing. But these patients are at high risk of intensive care unit admission because of numerous complications. Acute respiratory failure due to severe community-acquired pneumonia is one of the leading causes of admission. In this setting, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation is up to 60%, associated with a high hospital mortality rate of around 40 to 50%. A wide range of pathogens according to the reason of immunosuppression is associated with severe pneumonia in those patients: documented bacterial pneumonia represents a third of cases, viral and fungal pneumonia both account for up to 15% of cases. For patients with an undetermined etiology despite comprehensive diagnostic workup, the hospital mortality rate is very high. Thus, a standardized diagnosis strategy should be defined to increase the diagnosis rate and prescribe the appropriate treatment. This review focuses on the benefit-to-risk ratio of invasive or noninvasive strategies, in the era of omics, for the management of critically ill immunocompromised patients with severe pneumonia in terms of diagnosis and oxygenation.

Respiratory support in the emergency department a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An estimated 20% of emergency department (ED) patients require respiratory support (RS). Evidence suggests that nasal high flow (NHF) reduces RS need.

AIMS

This review compared NHF to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in adult ED patients.

METHOD

The systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) methods reflect the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NHF to COT or NIV use in the ED. Three summary estimates were reported: (1) need to escalate care, (2) mortality, and (3) adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

This SR and MA included 18 RCTs (n = 1874 participants). Two of the five MA conclusions were statistically significant. Compared with COT, NHF reduced the risk of escalation by 45% (RR 0.55; 95% CI [0.33, 0.92], p = .02, NNT = 32); however, no statistically significant differences in risk of mortality (RR 1.02; 95% CI [0.68, 1.54]; p = .91) and AE (RR 0.98; 95% CI [0.61, 1.59]; p = .94) outcomes were found. Compared with NIV, NHF increased the risk of escalation by 60% (RR 1.60; 95% CI [1.10, 2.33]; p = .01); mortality risk was not statistically significant (RR 1.23, 95% CI [0.78, 1.95]; p = .37).

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Evidence-based decision-making regarding RS in the ED is challenging. ED clinicians have at times had to rely on non-ED evidence to support their practice. Compared with COT, NHF was seen to be superior and reduced the risk of escalation. Conversely, for this same outcome, NIV was superior to NHF. However, substantial clinical heterogeneity was seen in the NIV delivered. Research considering NHF versus NIV is needed. COVID-19 has exposed the research gaps and slowed the progress of ED research.

High-flow Nasal Cannula versus Conventional Ventilation in Laryngeal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an emerging option for maintaining oxygenation in patients undergoing laryngeal surgery, as an alternative to traditional tracheal ventilation and jet ventilation (JV). However, the data on its safety and efficacy is sparse. This study aims to aggregate the current data and compares the use of HFNC with tracheal intubation and jet ventilation in adult patients undergoing laryngeal surgery. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, or MEDLARS Online), Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Both observational studies and prospective comparative studies were included. Risk of bias was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) or RoB2 tools and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for case series. Data were extracted and tabulated as a systematic review. Summary statistics were performed. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of the comparative studies were performed. Forty-three studies (14 HFNC, 22 JV, and seven comparative studies) with 8064 patients were included. In the meta-analysis of comparative studies, the duration of surgery was significantly reduced in the THRIVE (Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange) group, but the number of desaturations, need for rescue intervention, and peak end-tidal CO₂ were significantly increased compared to the conventional ventilation group. The evidence was of moderate certainty and there was no evidence of publication bias. In conclusion, HFNC may be as effective as tracheal intubation in oxygenation during laryngeal surgery in selected adult patients and reduces the duration of surgery but conventional ventilation with tracheal intubation may be safer. The safety of JV was comparable to HFNC.

Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy for high-risk patients during bronchoscopy examination: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been proven to improve oxygenation and avoid intubation in hypoxemic patients. It has also been utilized during endoscopy examination to reduce the incidence of hypoxia. However, little is known about the effects of HFNC versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on oxygenation during bronchoscopy examination via nasal route; particularly, no study has compared the use of HFNC with that of COT at similar F_IO₂ for patients who have high-risk factors of desaturation during bronchoscopy examination.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This randomized controlled trial will be implemented in four academic centers in China. Patients who have high-risk factors including hypoxemia, hypercapnia, morbid obesity, and narrow airway will be enrolled to use HFNC or COT during bronchoscopy examination. In the HFNC group, the initial gas flow will be set at 50 L/min with a fraction of inspired oxygen (F_IO₂) at 0.45, if the patient tolerates, the flow can be increased to 60L/min at most, while in the COT group, oxygen flow will be set at 6 L/min via a conventional nasal cannula. After 5 min pre-oxygenation, the bronchoscope will be inserted via the nasal route. Vital signs, oxygenation (SpO₂), and transcutaneous CO₂ (PtCO₂) will be continuously monitored. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as SpO₂ < 90% for 10 s during bronchoscopy examination, and secondary outcomes include the need for treatment escalation and adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Hypoxia is a common complication of bronchoscopy, our study attempted to demonstrate that HFNC may reduce the probability of hypoxia during bronchoscopy in high-risk patients. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chictr.org.cn/ : ChiCTR2100055038. Registered on 31 December 2021.

High Flow Nasal Cannula Decreased Pulmonary Complications in Neurologically Critically Ill Patients

Objective: Pulmonary complications could badly affect the recovery of neurological function and neurological prognosis of neurological critically ill patients. This study evaluated the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy on decreasing pulmonary complications in neurologically critically ill patients.

Patients and Methods: The patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with serious neurological disease and receiving oxygen therapy were retrospectively reviewed (Ethical No. IRB2021-YX-001). Patients were divided into the HFNC group and the conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group. We analyzed the data within these two groups, including patients’ baseline data, short-term outcomes of respiratory complications, general outcomes including hospital stay, ICU stay and mortality, and neurological functions. To analyze the relevant factors, we performed multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results: A total of 283 patients met the criteria, including 164 cases in the HFNC group and 119 cases in the COT group. The HFNC group had remarkably less mechanical ventilation requirement with lower phlegm viscosity. Even more, ICU stay and total hospital stay were significantly shortened in the HNFC group.

Conclusion: HFNC decreased pulmonary complications in neurologically critically ill patients and improved recovery of neurological function and neurological prognosis.

High flow nasal cannula for adult acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED setting: A narrative review

Introduction

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a noninvasive ventilation (NIV) system that has demonstrated promise in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Objective

This narrative review evaluates the utility of HFNC in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED setting.

Discussion

HFNC provides warm (37 °C), humidified (100% relative humidity) oxygen at high flows with a reliable fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂). HFNC can improve oxygenation, reduce airway resistance, provide humidified flow that can flush anatomical dead space, and provide a low amount of positive end expiratory pressure. Recent literature has demonstrated efficacy in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), interstitial lung disease, immunocompromised states, the peri-intubation state, and palliative care, with reduced need for intubation, length of stay, and mortality in some of these conditions. Individual patient factors play an important role in infection control risks with respect to the use of HFNC in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate personal protective equipment, adherence to hand hygiene, surgical mask placement over the HFNC device, and environmental controls promoting adequate room ventilation are the foundation for protecting healthcare personnel. Frequent reassessment of the patient placed on HFNC is necessary; those with severe end organ dysfunction, thoracoabdominal asynchrony, significantly increased respiratory rate, poor oxygenation despite HFNC, and tachycardia are at increased risk of HFNC failure and need for further intervention.

Conclusions

HFNC demonstrates promise in several conditions requiring respiratory support. Further randomized trials are needed in the ED setting.

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.

Use of nasal high flow oxygen during acute respiratory failure

Nasal high flow (NHF) has gained popularity among intensivists to manage patients with acute respiratory failure. An important literature has accompanied this evolution. In this review, an international panel of experts assessed potential benefits of NHF in different areas of acute respiratory failure management. Analyses of the physiological effects of NHF indicate flow-dependent improvement in various respiratory function parameters. These beneficial effects allow some patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure to avoid intubation and improve their outcome. They require close monitoring to not delay intubation. Such a delay may worsen outcome. The ROX index may help clinicians decide when to intubate. In immunocompromised patients, NHF reduces the need for intubation but does not impact mortality. Beneficial physiological effects of NHF have also been reported in patients with chronic respiratory failure, suggesting a possible indication in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. When intubation is required, NHF can be used to pre-oxygenate patients either alone or in combination with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Similarly, NHF reduces reintubation alone in low-risk patients and in combination with NIV in high-risk patients. NHF may be used in the emergency department in patients who would not be offered intubation and can be better tolerated than NIV.

Voluntary Prone Position for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Unintubated Patients

Severe hypoxemic respiratory failure is frequently managed with invasive mechanical ventilation with or without prone position (PP). We describe 13 cases of nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) of varied etiology, who were treated successfully in PP without the need for intubation. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula, supplementary oxygen with venturi face mask, or nasal cannula were used variedly in these patients. Mechanical ventilatory support is offered to patients with AHRF when other methods, such as NIV and oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, fail. Invasive mechanical ventilation is fraught with complications which could be immediate, ranging from worsening of hypoxemia, worsening hemodynamics, loss of airway, and even death. Late complications could be ventilator-associated pneumonia, biotrauma, tracheal stenosis, etc. Prone position is known to improve oxygenation and outcome in adult respiratory distress syndrome. We postulated that positioning an unintubated patient with AHRF in PP will improve oxygenation and avoid the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and thereby its complications. Here, we describe a series of 13 patients with hypoxemic respiratory of varied etiology, who were successfully treated in the PP without endotracheal intubation. Two patients (15.4%) had mild, nine (69.2%) had moderate, and two (15.4%) had severe hypoxemia. Oxygenation as assessed by PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio in supine position was 154 ± 52, which improved to 328 ± 65 after PP. Alveolar to arterial (A-a) O₂ gradient improved from a median of 170.5 mm Hg interquartile range (IQR) (127.8, 309.7) in supine position to 49.1 mm Hg IQR (45.0, 56.6) after PP. This improvement in oxygenation took a median of 46 hours, IQR (24, 109). Thus, voluntary PP maneuver improved oxygenation and avoided endotracheal intubation in a select group of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. This maneuver may be relevant in the ongoing novel coronavirus disease pandemic by potentially reducing endotracheal intubation and the need for ventilator and therefore better utilization of critical care services.

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.