Rapid systematic review shows that using a high-flow nasal cannula is inferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure as first-line support in preterm neonates

Efficay of high-flow nasal cannula in the paediatric population: A systematic evidence map

PROBLEM

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been widely used in paediatric medicine as a non-invasive ventilation mode for respiratory support. However, the differences in its efficacy across different diseases and intervention types remain poorly understood.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

An extensive literature search was performed across multiple academic databases to investigate the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of HFNC.

SAMPLE

This study included 35 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which collectively examined 355 randomised controlled trials and assessed 51 outcome indicators.

RESULTS

The findings suggest that the existing clinical research evidence predominantly supports the therapeutic efficacy of HFNC. Notably, there is a significant focus on treating acute lower respiratory infection, hypoxaemia, bronchiolitis, and respiratory distress syndrome following extubation. However, concerning the respiratory status, the existing clinical research evidence mainly demonstrates the therapeutic benefits in post-extubation respiratory support and primary respiratory support.

CONCLUSIONS

The research on HFNC has witnessed significant expansion, primarily focusing on respiratory disorders, post-extubation respiratory support, conscious sedation, and related fields. The evidence mapping provides a systematic and comprehensive overview of the available evidence on HFNC therapy in paediatric patients.

IMPLICATIONS

This study systematically and comprehensively assessed the clinical subjects and populations involved in HFNC therapy. Notably, this study analyzed the trends, current status, and evidence gaps of research, and furnished decision-makers and relevant researchers with a more comprehensive reference basis.

Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Nasal high flow (nHF) therapy provides heated, humidified air and oxygen via two small nasal prongs, at gas flows of more than 1 litre/minute (L/min), typically 2 L/min to 8 L/min. nHF is commonly used for non-invasive respiratory support in preterm neonates. It may be used in this population for primary respiratory support (avoiding, or prior to the use of mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube) for prophylaxis or treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). This is an update of a review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants compared to other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing nHF with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support for preterm infants born less than 37 weeks' gestation with respiratory distress soon after birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Neonatal methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. death (before hospital discharge) or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), 2. death (before hospital discharge), 3. BPD, 4. treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry and 5. mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube within 72 hours of trial entry. Our secondary outcomes were 6. respiratory support, 7. complications and 8. neurosensory outcomes. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (2540 infants) in this updated review. There are nine studies awaiting classification and 13 ongoing studies. The included studies differed in the comparator treatment (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV)), the devices for delivering nHF and the gas flows used. Some studies allowed the use of 'rescue' CPAP in the event of nHF treatment failure, prior to any mechanical ventilation, and some allowed surfactant administration via the INSURE (INtubation, SURfactant, Extubation) technique without this being deemed treatment failure. The studies included very few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation. Several studies had unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. Nasal high flow compared with continuous positive airway pressure for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Eleven studies compared nHF with CPAP for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.60; risk difference (RD) 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 7 studies, 1830 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared with CPAP, nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.39; 9 studies, 2009 infants; low-certainty evidence), or BPD (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; 8 studies, 1917 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.06; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 8 to 17; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, nHF likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; 9 studies, 2042 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in pneumothorax (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.08; 10 studies, 2094 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and nasal trauma (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; 7 studies, 1595 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for primary respiratory support in preterm infants Four studies compared nHF with NIPPV for primary respiratory support in preterm infants. When compared with NIPPV, nHF may result in little to no difference in the combined outcome of death or BPD, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.37; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.04; 2 studies, 182 infants; very low-certainty evidence). nHF may result in little to no difference in the risk of death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.69; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05; 3 studies, 254 infants; low-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the incidence of treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with NIPPV (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.79; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), or mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.33; 4 studies, 343 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in a reduction in nasal trauma, compared with NIPPV (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.47; RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.10; 3 studies, 272 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). nHF likely results in little to no difference in the rate of pneumothorax (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.53; 4 studies, 344 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nasal high flow compared with ambient oxygen We found no studies examining this comparison. Nasal high flow compared with low flow nasal cannulae We found no studies examining this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of nHF for primary respiratory support in preterm infants of 28 weeks' gestation or greater may result in little to no difference in death or BPD, compared with CPAP or NIPPV. nHF likely results in an increase in treatment failure within 72 hours of trial entry compared with CPAP; however, it likely does not increase the rate of mechanical ventilation. Compared with CPAP, nHF use likely results in less nasal trauma and likely a reduction in pneumothorax. As few extremely preterm infants less than 28 weeks' gestation were enrolled in the included trials, evidence is lacking for the use of nHF for primary respiratory support in this population.

Respiratory Management of the Preterm Infant: Supporting Evidence-Based Practice at the Bedside

Extremely preterm infants frequently require some form of respiratory assistance to facilitate the cardiopulmonary transition that occurs in the first hours of life. Current resuscitation guidelines identify as a primary determinant of overall newborn survival the establishment, immediately after birth, of adequate lung inflation and ventilation to ensure an adequate functional residual capacity. Any respiratory support provided, however, is an important contributing factor to the development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The risks correlated to invasive ventilatory techniques increase inversely with gestational age. Preterm infants are born at an early stage of lung development and are more susceptible to lung injury deriving from mechanical ventilation. Any approach aiming to reduce the global burden of preterm lung disease must implement lung-protective ventilation strategies that begin from the newborn’s first breaths in the delivery room. Neonatologists today must be able to manage both invasive and noninvasive forms of respiratory assistance to treat a spectrum of lung diseases ranging from acute to chronic conditions. We searched PubMed for articles on preterm infant respiratory assistance. Our narrative review provides an evidence-based overview on the respiratory management of preterm infants, especially in the acute phase of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, starting from the delivery room and continuing in the neonatal intensive care unit, including a section regarding exogenous surfactant therapy.

Treatment of Pediatric Patients With High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Considerations for Oral Feeding: A Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) has become an increasingly common means of noninvasive respiratory support in pediatrics and is being used in infants and children with respiratory distress both inside and outside of the intensive care units. Despite the widespread use of HFNC, there remains a paucity of data on optimal flow rates and its impact on morbidity, mortality, and desired outcomes. Given the scarcity of information in these critical areas, it is not surprising that guidelines for initiation of oral feeding do not exist. This review article will review HFNC mechanisms of action, its use in specific populations and settings, and finally what is known about initiation of feeding during this therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of withholding oral feeding solely, because of HFNC, is not supported in the literature at the time of this writing, but in the absence of safety data from clinical trials, clinicians should proceed with caution and consider patient-specific factors while making decisions about oral feeding. Well-controlled prospective clinical trials are needed for development of best practice clinical guidelines and attainment of optimal outcomes.

Observational cohort study of changing trends in non-invasive ventilation in very preterm infants and associations with clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the change in non-invasive ventilation (NIV) use over time in infants born at <32 weeks' gestation and the associated clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using routinely recorded data from the National Neonatal Research Database of infants born at <32 weeks admitted to neonatal units in England and Wales from 2010 to 2017.

RESULTS

In 56 537 infants, NIV use increased significantly between 2010 and 2017 (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) from 68.5% to 80.2% in 2017 and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) from 14% to 68%, respectively) (p<0.001)). Use of NIV as the initial mode of respiratory support also increased (CPAP, 21.5%-28.0%; HFNC, 1%-7% (p<0.001)).HFNC was used earlier, and for longer, in those who received CPAP or mechanical ventilation. HFNC use was associated with decreased odds of death before discharge (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.19, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.22). Infants receiving CPAP but no HFNC died at an earlier median chronological age: CPAP group, 22 (IQR 10-39) days; HFNC group 40 (20-76) days (p<0.001). Among survivors, HFNC use was associated with increased odds of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (aOR 2.98, 95% CI 2.81 to 3.15) and other adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

NIV use is increasing, particularly as initial respiratory support. HFNC use has increased significantly with a sevenfold increase soon after birth which was associated with higher rates of BPD. As more infants survive with BPD, we need robust clinical evidence, to improve outcomes with the use of NIV as initial and ongoing respiratory support.

Systematic review of high-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure for primary support in preterm infants

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a meta-analysis of trials that compared efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as primary respiratory support in preterm infants and a study of the impact of clinical relevant parameters.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing HFNC with CPAP as primary respiratory support in preterm infants. Treatment failure was considered as primary outcome and adverse events as secondary outcomes. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) in intention-to-treat analysis and random-effects meta-analyses of risks were conducted.

RESULTS

We included 10 studies for a total of 1830 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated an RR of treatment failure multiplied by 1.34 using HFNC compared with CPAP (RR=1.34, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.68, I²=16.2%). Secondary outcome meta-analysis showed no difference in intubation rates (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.15) and a lower rate of nasal trauma using HFNC compared with CPAP (RR=0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65, I²=0.0%). Meta-regressions did not show any influence of gestational age and weight at birth, HFNC flow rate, type of CPAP generator or use of surfactant.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a higher risk of treatment failure, considering no difference in intubation rates and a lower rate of nasal trauma using HFNC compared with CPAP, we suggest that HFNC should be used as primary respiratory support in preterm infants.

High-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure in primary respiratory support for preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Respiratory support is crucial for the survival of preterm infants, and High-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (HFNC) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) are commonly used for neonatal respiratory support. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of HFNC and CPAP in primary respiratory support for preterm infants, to provide evidence-based support for clinical practice. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, VIP, WANFANG and SinoMed were searched for eligible studies. The primary outcomes included the incidence of treatment failure and the application of mechanical ventilation. A total of 27 eligible studies with 3,351 participants were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of respiratory support failure [RR = 1.17, 95%CI (0.88-1.56)] and the application of mechanical ventilation [RR = 1.00, 95%CI (0.84-1.19)] between HFNC group and CPAP group. HFNC resulted in lower rate of air leaks [RR = 0.65, 95%CI (0.46-0.92)], nasal trauma [RR = 0.36, 95%CI (0.29-0.45)] and abdominal distension [RR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.27-0.58)], and later time of mechanical ventilation initiating [SMD = 0.60, 95%CI (0.21-0.99)], less duration of oxygen therapy [SMD = -0.35, 95%CI (-0.68 to -0.02)] and earlier enteral feeding [SMD = -0.54, 95%CI (-0.95 to -0.13)]. Alternative non-invasive respiratory support after initial treatment failure resulted in no difference in the application of mechanical ventilation between the two groups [RR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.52-1.88)]. HFNC might be more effective and safer in primary respiratory support for preterm infants. Using CPAP as a remedy for the treatment failure of HFNC could not avoid intubation. For premature infants with the gestational age <28 weeks, HFNC as primary respiratory support still needs to be further elucidated. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022313479, identifier: CRD42022313479.

[Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in neonates.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang Database, CNKI, and Weipu Database were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HFNC versus nCPAP in the treatment of neonatal RDS published up to April 1, 2020. RevMan5.3 software was used to perform a Meta analysis of the eligible RCTs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs were included, with 2 861 neonates in total, among whom 2 698 neonates (94.30%) had a gestational age of ≥28 weeks and 163 (5.70%) had a gestational age of <28 weeks. For primary respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly higher rate of treatment failure than the nCPAP group (RR=1.86, 95%CI: 1.53-2.25, P<0.001), but there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (P=0.40) and the rate of use of pulmonary surfactant (P=0.77). For post-extubation respiratory support, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the treatment failure rate, reintubation rate, and total oxygen supply time (P>0.05). For primary respiratory support and post-extubation respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly lower incidence rate of nasal injury than the nCPAP group (P<0.001), and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the mortality rate and incidence rates of the complications such as air leak syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current clinical evidence, HFNC has a higher failure rate than nCPAP when used as primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS, and therefore it is not recommended to use HFNC as the primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS. In RDS neonates with a gestational age of ≥28 weeks, HFNC can be used as post-extubation respiratory support in the weaning phase.

Systematic Reviews in Neonatal Respiratory Care: Are Some Conclusions Misleading?

An increasing amount of information is currently available in neonatal respiratory care. Systematic reviews are an important tool for clinical decision-making. The challenge is to combine studies that address a specific clinical question and have similar characteristics in terms of populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes, so that their combined results provide a more precise estimate of the effect that can be validly extrapolated into clinical practice. The concept of heterogeneity is reviewed, emphasizing that it should be considered in a wider perspective and not just as a mere statistical test. A case is made of how well-designed studies of the neonatal respiratory literature, when equivocally combined, can provide very precise but potentially biased results. Systematic reviews in this field and others should be rigorously peer-reviewed before publication to avoid misleading readers to potentially biased conclusions.

Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as a mode of respiratory support. We updated a systematic review and meta-analyses examining the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with standard treatments for preterm infants. The primary outcome was the need for reintubation for preterm infants following mechanical ventilation (post-extubation analysis) or need for intubation for preterm infants not previously intubated (analysis of primary respiratory support)

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HHHFNC versus standard treatments. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

The post-extubation analysis included ten RCTs (n = 1,201), and the analysis of primary respiratory support included ten RCTs (n = 1,676). There were no statistically significant differences for outcomes measuring efficacy, including the primary outcome. There were statistically significant differences favoring HHHFNC versus nasal cannula positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for air leak (post-extubation, risk ratio [RR] 0.29, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.76, I2 = 0) and nasal trauma (post-extubation: 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.27 to 0.46, I2 = 5 percent; primary respiratory support: RR 0.52, 95 percent CI 0.37 to 0.74; I2 = 27 percent). Studies, particularly those of primary respiratory support, included very few preterm infants with gestational age (GA) <28 weeks.

Conclusions

HHHFNC may offer an efficacious and safe alternative to NCPAP for some infants but evidence is lacking for preterm infants with GA ≤28 weeks.

Approaches to Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants: From CPAP to NAVA

Endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation have been mainstays in respiratory care of neonates with respiratory distress syndrome. Together with antenatal steroids and surfactant, this approach has accounted for significant reductions in neonatal mortality. However, with the increased survival of very low birthweight infants, the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the primary respiratory morbidity of prematurity, has also increased. Arrest of alveolar growth and development and the abnormal development of the pulmonary vasculature after birth are the primary causes of BPD. However, invasive ventilation-associated lung inflammation and airway injury have long been believed to be important contributors. In fact, discontinuing invasive ventilation in favor of noninvasive respiratory support has been considered the single best approach that neonatologists can implement to reduce BPD. In this review, we present and discuss the mechanisms, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of the four main approaches to noninvasive respiratory support of the preterm infant currently in use: nasal continuous positive airway pressure, high-flow nasal cannula, nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. We show that noninvasive ventilation can decrease rates of intubation and the need for invasive ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. However, none of these noninvasive approaches decrease rates of BPD. Accordingly, noninvasive respiratory support should be considered for clinical goals other than the reduction of BPD.