High-Flow Therapy by Nasal Cannulae Versus High-Flow Face Mask in Severe Hypoxemia After Cardiac Surgery: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Study-The HEART FLOW Study

High-flow nasal cannula therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy for adult patients after cardiac surgery: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oxygen therapy constitutes a crucial element of post-cardiac operative care. The study assessed the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in comparison to conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC in comparison to COT for adult patients following cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception until April 18, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in adult patients following cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included nine studies, consisting of eight RCTs and one crossover study. Compared with COT, HFNC could reduce the need for escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.93, P = 0.02), decrease arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) levels (MD -3.14, 95% CI: -4.90 to -1.39, P<0.001), and increase forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) levels (MD 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.15, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the HFNC and COT groups in terms of mortality, intubation rate, respiratory rate, heart rate, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), forced vital capacity, and complications of atrial fibrillation and delirium.

CONCLUSION

Compared with COT, HFNC could decrease the need for escalation of respiratory support, lower PaCO2 levels, and elevate FEV1 levels in patients following cardiac surgery.

Effects of non-invasive respiratory support in post-operative patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Re-intubation secondary to post-extubation respiratory failure in post-operative patients is associated with increased patient morbidity and mortality. Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) alternative to conventional oxygen therapy (COT), i.e., high-flow nasal oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure, and non-invasive ventilation (NIV), has been proposed to prevent or treat post-extubation respiratory failure. Aim of the present study is assessing the effects of NRS application, compared to COT, on the re-intubation rate (primary outcome), and time to re-intubation, incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, patient discomfort, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, and mortality (secondary outcomes) in adult patients extubated after surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. A search from Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception until February 2, 2024 was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies (11,292 patients) were included. Among all NRS modalities, only NIV reduced the re-intubation rate, compared to COT (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.28; 0.87, p = 0.015, I2 = 60.5%, low certainty of evidence). In particular, this effect was observed in patients receiving NIV for treatment, while not for prevention, of post-extubation respiratory failure, and in patients at high, while not low, risk of post-extubation respiratory failure. NIV reduced the rate of nosocomial pneumonia, ICU length of stay, and ICU, hospital, and long-term mortality, while not worsening patient discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

In post-operative patients receiving NRS after extubation, NIV reduced the rate of re-intubation, compared to COT, when used for treatment of post-extubation respiratory failure and in patients at high risk of post-extubation respiratory failure.

Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients: Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator.

METHODS

Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Risk Factors of Hypoxemia in the Postanesthesia Care Unit After General Anesthesia in Children

PURPOSE

To investigate the incidence and risk factors of hypoxemia in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) after general anesthesia in children.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

METHODS

Elective surgical patients (N = 3,840 patients) treated in a pediatric hospital were divided into a hypoxemia group and a nonhypoxemia group according to the presence of hypoxemia following transport to the PACU. The clinical data of the 3,840 patients were compared between these two groups to evaluate factors that were linked to the development of postoperative hypoxemia. Factors that showed a statistically significant difference (P < .05) in single-factor tests were then examined in multivariate regression analyses to identify hypoxemia risk factors.

FINDINGS

In our study group of 3,840 patients, 167 (4.35%) patients developed hypoxemia, with an incidence of 4.35%. Univariate analysis indicated that age, weight, anesthesia method, and operation type were significantly associated with hypoxemia. Logistic regression analysis indicated that operation type was associated with hypoxemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery type is a primary risk factor for pediatric hypoxemia in the PACU following general anesthesia. Patients undergoing oral surgery are more prone to hypoxemia and should be more intensively monitored to ensure timely treatment if required.

The short-term efficacy of high flow nasal oxygen therapy on cardiovascular surgical patients: a randomized crossover trial

Background

Oxygen therapy after extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is essential in order to maintain adequate oxygenation, especially in patients who have undertaken cardiovascular surgery. A Venturi mask (VM) has been routinely used as an oxygen therapy in the ICU. Recently, however, the high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become available, and this device can deliver up to 60 L/min of humidified oxygen. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-term efficacy between HFNC and VM in cardiovascular surgical patients.

Methods

Forty patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery were randomized to either protocol A (HFNC followed by VM) or protocol B (VM followed by HFNC). After 60-minutes of use with either device, arterial blood gas analysis was performed, and the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (PFR) was calculated. Simultaneously, physiological data (respiratory rate, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, continuous cardiac index, and mixed venous oxygen saturation) were recorded. During this procedure, FiO₂ and gas flow were maintained at a fixed rate. These variables were compared by using the paired t-test, and a p value < 0.05 was considered significant. All data were expressed as mean (standard deviation).

Results

Thirty-five patients (17 from protocol A and 18 from protocol B) were enrolled, and 5 patients were excluded from analysis in accordance with the exit criteria. PaO₂ was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the VM group [101.7 (25.9) vs. 91.8 (23.0), mean difference 9.87 (18.5), 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 16.2, p = 0.003]. Moreover, PFR was significantly higher in the HFNC group than in the VM group [265.9 (81.4) vs. 238.7 (68.5), p = 0.002]. Moreover, PaCO₂ was significantly lower in the HFNC group than in the VM group [33.8 (3.5) vs. 34.7 (2.9), p = 0.033]. The respiratory rate was significantly lower in the HFNC group than in the VM group [18 (4) vs. 21 (4), p = 0.006], and no significant differences were seen in any of the other parameters.

Conclusions

Compared to VM, HFNC ameliorated oxygenation function and decreased patients’ effort in breathing. The hemodynamic state did not differ between HFNC and VM. Therefore, HFNC can be used safely in cardiovascular surgical patients.

Trial registration

This trial was registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (ID UMIN000016572).

An analysis of the treatment effect of two modes of oxygenation on patients with radiation pneumonia complicated by respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) is widely used in the treatment of thoracic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a non-rebreather mask (NRBM) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with radiation pneumonia complicated with respiratory failure.

METHODS

This was a single-center randomized controlled study. Patients admitted to the EICU of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University were selected and divided into NRBM and HFNC group. Arterial blood gas analysis, tidal volume, respiratory rates and the cases of patients receiving invasive assisted ventilation were collected at 0, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after admission.

RESULTS

(1) The PaO2/FiO2, respiratory rates, and tidal volume between the two groups at 0, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h were different, with F values of 258.177, 294.121, and 134.372, all P< 0.01. These indicators were different under two modes of oxygenation, with F values of 40.671, 168.742, and 55.353, all P< 0.01, also varied with time, with an F value of 7.480, 9.115, and 12.165, all P< 0.01. (2) The incidence of trachea intubation within 72 h between HFNC and NRBM groups (23 [37.1%] vs. 34 [54.0%], P< 0.05). The transition time to mechanical ventilation in the HFNC and NRBM groups (55.3 ± 3.2 h vs. 45.9 ± 3.6 h, P< 0.05). (3) The risk of intubation in patients with an APACHE-II score > 23 was 2.557 times than score ⩽ 23, and the risk of intubation in the NRBM group was 1.948 times more than the HFNC group (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the NRBM, HFNC can improve the oxygenation state of patients with radiation pneumonia complicated with respiratory failure in a short time, and reduce the incidence of trachea intubation within 72 h.

ERS Clinical Practice Guidelines: High-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used non-invasive form of respiratory support in acute settings, however evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The European Respiratory Society Task Force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The Task Force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methods to summarize evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF.

RESULTS

The Task Force developed 8 conditional recommendations, suggesting using: 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxemic ARF, 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxemic ARF, 3)HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV, 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications, 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications, 6) HFNC over COT in non-surgical patients at low risk of extubation failure, 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV, 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic ARF.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of non-invasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased.

PURPOSE

To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k = 11) or COT (k = 21).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized.

CONCLUSION

Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

Appropriate Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Hospitalized Patients for Initial or Postextubation Management of Acute Respiratory Failure: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure. It is based on the best available evidence on the benefits and harms of HFNO, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of HFNO. The patient-centered health outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day hospital readmissions, hospital-acquired pneumonia, days of intubation or reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU transfers, patient comfort, dyspnea, delirium, barotrauma, compromised nutrition, gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge, discharge disposition, and skin breakdown. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated in a hospital setting (including emergency departments, hospital wards, intermediate or step-down units, and ICUs).

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than noninvasive ventilation in hospitalized adults for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than conventional oxygen therapy for hospitalized adults with postextubation acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

High Flow Oxygen Therapy at Two Initial Flow Settings versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Cardiac Surgery Patients with Postextubation Hypoxemia: A Single-Center, Unblinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

In cardiac surgery patients with pre-extubation PaO₂/inspired oxygen fraction (FiO₂) < 200 mmHg, the possible benefits and optimal level of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) support are still unclear; therefore, we compared HFNC support with an initial gas flow of 60 or 40 L/min and conventional oxygen therapy. Ninety nine patients were randomly allocated (respective ratio: 1:1:1) to I = intervention group 1 (HFNC initial flow = 60 L/min, FiO₂ = 0.6), intervention group 2 (HFNC initial flow = 40 L/min, FiO₂ = 0.6), or control group (Venturi mask, FiO₂ = 0.6). The primary outcome was occurrence of treatment failure. The baseline characteristics were similar. The hazard for treatment failure was lower in intervention group 1 vs. control (hazard ratio (HR): 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03–0.34) and intervention group 2 vs. control (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12–0.77). During follow-up, the probability of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) > 92% and respiratory rate within 12–20 breaths/min was 2.4–3.9 times higher in intervention group 1 vs. the other 2 groups. There was no difference in PaO₂/FiO₂, patient comfort, intensive care unit or hospital stay, or clinical course complications or adverse events. In hypoxemic cardiac surgery patients, postextubation HFNC with an initial gas flow of 60 or 40 L/min resulted in less frequent treatment failure vs. conventional therapy. The results in terms of SpO₂/respiratory rate targets favored an initial HFNC flow of 60 L/min.

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.