Nasal High-flow Oxygen Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy for Acute Severe Asthma Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in hospitalised patients with respiratory illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

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.

[Diagnosis and treatment of asthma: a guideline for respiratory specialists 2023 - published by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) e. V.]

The management of asthma has fundamentally changed during the past decades. The present guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma was developed for respiratory specialists who need detailed and evidence-based information on the new diagnostic and therapeutic options in asthma. The guideline shows the new role of biomarkers, especially blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled NO (FeNO), in diagnostic algorithms of asthma. Of note, this guideline is the first worldwide to announce symptom prevention and asthma remission as the ultimate goals of asthma treatment, which can be achieved by using individually tailored, disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs such as inhaled steroids, allergen immunotherapy or biologics. In addition, the central role of the treatment of comorbidities is emphasized. Finally, the document addresses several challenges in asthma management, including asthma treatment during pregnancy, treatment of severe asthma or the diagnosis and treatment of work-related asthma.

ROX index versus HACOR scale in predicting success and failure of high-flow nasal cannula in the emergency department for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula has been a promising initial respiratory support measure for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in the emergency department (ED). However, delayed detection of HFNC failure is associated with increased mortality. The ROX index is a tool that can help predict HFNC success. Nonetheless, its utility in ED patients is limited, and no studies have compared it with the HACOR scale, another tool that may be as accurate in predicting HFNC failure. Therefore, we aimed to compare the prognostic utility of the ROX index and the HACOR scale in emergency AHRF patients.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted at the ED of Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, between August 2018 and February 2020. Adult patients with AHRF requiring HFNC in the ED were included. The ROX index and the HACOR scale were measured at 1, 2, and 6 h after HFNC initiation. The primary outcome was HFNC success, defined as no intolerance or escalation towards mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilation within 48 h.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients were enrolled; 52 (69.3%) had a successful treatment. The ROX index was higher in the success group, while the HACOR scale was lower at all timepoints. The ROX index yielded generally higher discrimination capacity based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) than the HACOR scale [AUROC at 1, 2, and 6 h = 0.815, 0.784, 0.853 for ROX in predicting HFNC success and 0.733, 0.690, and 0.764 for HACOR in predicting HFNC failure]. The ROX index measured at 6 h at the cut-point of 4.88 had 92.98% sensitivity, 61.11% specificity, 88.33% positive predictive value, and 73.33% negative predictive value with a diagnostic accuracy of 85.33%.

CONCLUSION

The ROX index had superior prognostic utility in predicting HFNC outcome (success/failure) compared to the HACOR scale in patients with AHRF in the ED setting. Moreover, it is less complex and more efficient to be employed at bedside. Therefore, the ROX index is a more appropriate tool to guide further management and potential escalation therapy for AHRF patients with HFNC therapy initiated in the ED.

The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen for asthma control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Introduction

The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control remains controversial.

Aim

This meta-analysis aims to explore the influence of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy on asthma control.

Material and methods

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control.

Results

Four RCTs are included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared with conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, high-flow oxygen is associated with a significantly lower dyspnoea score (standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.08 to -0.17; p = 0.008), but reveals no remarkable influence on PaCO₂ (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI: -0.22 to 0.77; p = 0.28), PaO₂ (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.22; p = 0.63), intubation rate (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.15 to 8.21; p = 0.93) or hospital length of stay (SMD = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.27; p = 0.67).

Conclusions

High-flow oxygen may benefit to reduce/may be more beneficial in reducing the dyspnoea score than conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, but shows no improvement in PaCO₂, PaO₂, intubation or hospital length of stay.

Treatment patterns and frequency of key outcomes in acute severe asthma in children: a Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) multicentre cohort study

RATIONALE

Severe acute paediatric asthma may require treatment escalation beyond systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators and low-flow oxygen. Current large asthma datasets report parenteral therapy only.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the use and type of escalation of treatment in children presenting to hospital with acute severe asthma.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of children with an emergency department diagnosis of asthma or wheeze at 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals. The main outcomes were use and type of escalation treatment (defined as any of intensive care unit admission, nebulised magnesium, respiratory support or parenteral bronchodilator treatment) and hospital length of stay (LOS).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 14 029 children (median age 3 (IQR 1-3) years; 62.9% male), 1020 (7.3%, 95% CI 6.9% to 7.7%) had treatment escalation. Children with treatment escalation had a longer LOS (44.2 hours, IQR 27.3-63.2 hours) than children without escalation 6.7 hours, IQR 3.5-16.3 hours; p<0.001). The most common treatment escalations were respiratory support alone (400; 2.9%, 95% CI 2.6% to 3.1%), parenteral bronchodilator treatment alone (380; 2.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 3.0%) and both respiratory support and parenteral bronchodilator treatment (209; 1.5%, 95% CI 1.3% to 1.7%). Respiratory support was predominantly nasal high-flow therapy (99.0%). The most common intravenous medication regimens were: magnesium alone (50.4%), magnesium and aminophylline (24.6%) and magnesium and salbutamol (10.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 7.3% children with acute severe asthma received some form of escalated treatment, with 4.2% receiving parenteral bronchodilators and 4.3% respiratory support. There is wide variation treatment escalation.