Comparison of high-flow oxygenation with noninvasive ventilation in COPD exacerbation: A crossover clinical trial

High flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can lead to acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF), often treated using noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Emerging research suggests the potential utility of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for AHRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of HFNC versus NIV on AHRF management. A search of electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Complete), web sources, and trial registries was last conducted on 9 February 2023. Quality and risk of bias assessments were conducted. Meta-analyses were used to synthesise data. Seven randomised controlled trials were included. No statistically significant differences between HFNC and NIV were found within the following outcomes of interest: (i) correction of pCO2: standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.34 to 0.02), p = 0.08; (ii) correction of pH: SMD = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.14), p = 0.59; (iii) correction of pO2: SMD = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.09), p = 0.22; (iv) intubation rates: risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.82), p = 0.71; (v) mortality rates: RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.56), p = 0.61; and (vi) treatment switch: RR = 1.30, 95% CI (0.43 to 3.94), p = 0.64. More controlled trials with large sample sizes are required to investigate the management of AHRF of various aetiologies. HFNC may be used as a final exhaustive measure for COPD-related AHRF where NIV is not tolerated, and when it is not clinically indicated to extend to endotracheal intubation.

Comparison of High Flow Nasal Therapy with Non-Invasive Ventilation and Conventional Oxygen Therapy for Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate whether high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an effective and safe method for adult patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF).

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases from inception to August 2022 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared HFNC with conventional oxygen treatment (COT) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with AHRF, and then performed a meta-analysis.

Results

A total of ten parallel RCTs with 1265 individuals were identified. Of them, two studies compared HFNC with COT and eight studies compared HFNC with NIV. In terms of intubation rate, mortality, and arterial blood gas (ABG) improvement, HFNC showed comparable effects to NIV and COT. However, HFNC was more comfortable (mean difference [MD] -1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] =-2.59, -1.15, P <0.00001, I² =0%) and resulted in fewer adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 0.12, 95% CI=0.06, 0.28, P<0.00001, I² = 0%), compared with NIV. In comparison to NIV, HFNC could significantly lower heart rate (HR) (MD -4.66, 95% CI=-6.82, -2.50, P <0.0001, I² =0%), respiratory rate (RR) (MD -1.17, 95% CI=-2.03, -0.31, P =0.008, I² =0%), and hospital stay length (MD -0.80, 95% CI=-1.44, -0.16, P =0.01, I² =0%). NIV showed a decreased frequency in the treatment crossover rate, compared with HFNC in patients with pH<7.30 (OR 5.78, 95% CI=1.50, 22.31, P = 0.01, I²: not applicable). Contrary to COT, HFNC could considerably reduce the need for NIV (OR 0.57, 95% CI=0.35, 0.91, P=0.02, I²=0%).

Conclusion

HFNC was effective and safe in patients with AHRF. However, in patients with pH <7.30, HFNC may result in a higher incidence of treatment crossover, compared with NIV. Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for NIV in patients with compensated hypercapnia.

The use of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease under exacerbation and stable phases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been increasingly utilized in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, the effects on reducing the need for intubation or reintubation remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate whether HFNC therapy was superior to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with COPD.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in electronic databases until October 1st, 2022. The primary outcome was the need for intubation/reintubation. All analyses were performed using R (version 4.0.3) and STATA SE (version 15.1).

RESULTS

When HFNC therapy was compared with NIV in patients with COPD under initial respiratory support and postextubation, no significant differences were found in the risk of intubation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.98) and reintubation (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.50). Compared to NIV, HFNC therapy did not decrease the partial pressure of carbon dioxide or increase the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen. However, HFNC therapy was associated with a lower incidence of skin breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69) and a higher comfort score (SMD 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.20) than NIV. When HFNC therapy was compared with COT during initial respiratory treatment for COPD exacerbation, a lower risk of treatment failure was found (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89). When HFNC therapy was compared with long-term oxygen therapy, quality of life (measured by SGRQ-C) was significantly improved (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.14).

CONCLUSION

HFNC therapy might be used as an alternative to NIV for COPD exacerbation with mild-moderate hypercapnia under close monitoring and is a potential domiciliary treatment for stable COPD.

High-flow nasal cannula therapy with sequential noninvasive ventilation versus noninvasive ventilation alone as the initial ventilatory strategy in acute COPD exacerbations: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is the recommended mode of ventilation used in acute respiratory failure secondary to an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Recent data has shown that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment can be an alternative for patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure. The purpose of this study is to evaluate HFNC with sequential NIV versus NIV alone as the initial ventilatory strategy in AECOPD.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, unblinded, single center, randomized controlled trial will be conducted in the emergency department, emergency intensive care unit, or respiratory intensive care unit of a tertiary-care urban teaching hospital. A total of 66 patients will be enrolled and randomized into the intervention group (HFNC with sequential NIV) or the control group (NIV group). The primary endpoint will be the mean difference in PaCO₂ from baseline to 24 h after randomization. Secondary endpoints include the mean difference in PaCO₂ from baseline to 6, 12, and 18 h, as well as the dyspnea score, overall discomfort score, rate of treatment failure, respiratory rate, rate of endotracheal intubation, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

DISCUSSION

Taking the advantages of both HFNC and NIV on AECOPD patients into account, we designed this clinical trial to investigate the combination of these ventilatory strategies. This trial will help us understand how HFNC with sequential NIV compares to NIV alone in treating AECOPD patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100054809.

High-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bi-level positive pressure ventilation is a first-line intervention for selected patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIV may reduce endotracheal intubation, death, and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), but its use is often limited by patient tolerance and treatment failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a potential alternative treatment in this patient population and may be better tolerated.

Research question

For patients presenting with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, is HFNC an effective alternative to NIV in reducing the need for intubation?

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane library from database inception through to October 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adults with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure assigned to receive HFNC or NIV. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess risk of bias. We calculated pooled relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.

Results

We included eight RCTs (n = 528) in the final analysis. The use of HFNC compared to NIV did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48–1.56, low certainty), or our secondary outcomes including endotracheal intubation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46–1.39, low certainty), or hospital LOS (MD − 0.82 days, 95% CI − 1.83–0.20, high certainty). There was no difference in change in partial pressure of carbon dioxide between groups (MD − 1.87 mmHg, 95% CI − 5.34–1.60, moderate certainty).

Interpretation

The current body of evidence is limited in determining whether HFNC may be either superior, inferior, or equivalent to NIV for patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure given imprecision and study heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to better understand the effect of HFNC on this population.

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).