High-Flow Nasal Cannula versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Patients with Heart Failure after Extubation: An Observational Cohort Study

Cardiopulmonary outcomes following high flow nasal cannula in pediatric population: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has received much attention in various clinical settings and has been approved recently for application in pediatric care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether HFNC use improves cardiopulmonary outcomes in pediatric patients with the cardiac disease more effectively than alternative oxygen therapies.

METHODS

Systematic review was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing HFNC with alternative oxygen therapies and observational studies that solely reported on the use of HFNC in the pediatric population were included between 2012 and 2022.

RESULTS

Nine studies with approximately 656 patients were reported in this review. HFNC significantly increased systemic oxygen saturation across all literature investigating this parameter. Other notable outcomes in HFNC patients included normalizing heart rate, partial blood pressure, and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio. However, some studies reported a complication rate concurrent with traditional oxygen therapies, and a suggested HFNC failure rate of 50% was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with traditional oxygen therapies, HFNC can reduce anatomical dead space and normalize systemic oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, heart rate, and partial blood pressure. We advocate using HFNC therapy in children with cardiac diseases as the currently available evidence supports HFNC use over other oxygenation treatments in the pediatric population.

The efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients at high risk of extubation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) can prevent reintubation in critically ill patients with a low risk of extubation failure. However, the safety and effectiveness in patients at high risk of extubation failure are still debated. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of HFNC and NIV in high-risk patients.

METHODS

We searched eight databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan-Fang Database, and Chinese Biological Medical Database) with reintubation as a primary outcome measure. The secondary outcomes included mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), incidence of adverse events, and respiratory function indices. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 1457 patients were included. The HFNC and NIV groups showed no differences in reintubation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87-1.40, I² = 0%, P = 0.42), mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82-1.46, I² = 0%, P = 0.54), and respiratory function indices (partial pressure of carbon dioxide [PaCO₂]: MD - 1.31, 95% CI - 2.76-0.13, I² = 81%, P = 0.07; oxygenation index [P/F]: MD - 2.18, 95% CI - 8.49-4.13, I² = 57%, P = 0.50; respiratory rate [Rr]: MD - 0.50, 95% CI - 1.88-0.88, I² = 80%, P = 0.47). However, HFNC reduced adverse events (abdominal distension: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.24, I² = 0%, P < 0.01; aspiration: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-1.07, I² = 0%, P = 0.06; facial injury: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.88, I² = 0%, P = 0.03; delirium: RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.07-1.39, I² = 0%, P = 0.12; pulmonary complications: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, I² = 0%, P = 0.05; intolerance: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.57, I² = 0%, P < 0.01) and may have shortened LOS (MD - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.86-- 0.20, I² = 93%, P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis by language, extubation method, NIV parameter settings, and HFNC flow rate revealed higher heterogeneity in LOS, PaCO₂, and Rr.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients at a high risk of extubation failure, HFNC reduced the incidence of adverse events but did not affect reintubation and mortality. Consequently, whether or not HFNC can reduce LOS and improve respiratory function remains inconclusive.

Advantages and drawbacks of helmet noninvasive support in acute respiratory failure

INTRODUCTION

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) represents an effective strategy for managing acute respiratory failure. Facemask NIV is strongly recommended in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with hypercapnia and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). Its role in managing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) remains a debated issue. NIV and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) delivered through the helmet are recently receiving growing interest for AHRF management.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review, we discuss the clinical applications of helmet support compared to the other available noninvasive strategies in the different phenotypes of acute respiratory failure.

EXPERT OPINION

Helmets enable the use of high positive end-expiratory pressure, which may protect from self-inflicted lung injury: in AHRF, the possible superiority of helmet support over other noninvasive strategies in terms of clinical outcome has been hypothesized in a network metanalysis and a randomized trial, but has not been confirmed by other investigations and warrants confirmation. In AECOPD patients, helmet efficacy may be inferior to that of face masks, and its use prompts caution due to the risk of CO₂ rebreathing. Helmet support can be safely applied in hypoxemic patients with ACPE, with no advantages over facemasks.

Parallel-group, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for emergency patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an innovative oxygen-delivering technique, which has been shown to effectively decrease the intubation risk in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure of various aetiologies compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Also, it has proved to be non-inferior to non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure primarily due to pneumonia. Evidence on its benefits compared with NIPPV, which is the standard of care for patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE) with hypoxaemic respiratory distress, is limited. Therefore, we planned this study to investigate the effects of HFNC compared with NIPPV for emergency patients with ACPE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this single-centred, non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we will randomly allocate 240 patients visiting the emergency department with ACPE in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HFNC or NIPPV for at least 4 hours using computer-generated mixed-block randomisation concealed by sealed opaque envelopes. The primary outcome is the intubation rate in 72 hours after randomisation. The main secondary outcomes are intolerance rate, mortality rate and treatment failure rate (a composite of intolerance, intubation and mortality). The outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded to the intervention. These categorical outcomes will be analysed by calculating the risk ratio. Interim analyses evaluating the primary outcome will be performed after half of the expected sample size are recruited.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol has been approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (study ID: Si 271/2021). It has been granted the Siriraj Research and Development Fund. All participants or their authorised third parties will provide written informed consent prior to trial inclusion. The study results will be published in a peer-reviewed international journal and presented at national and international scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TCTR20210413001.

Physiological Effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy and Its Use in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an open oxygen delivery system, which provides heated and humidified oxygen at a high flow (up to 60 L/min). This effect can improve mucociliary function, airway clearance, and level of comfort to the patient. It can provide controlled and adequate fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) between 21% and 100%. Generation of end-expiratory pressure helps in carbon dioxide washout, reduction of anatomical dead space, and recruitment of collapsed alveoli, ultimately improving tissue oxygenation.

The use of HFNC in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, post-extubation period, pre-intubation period, respiratory infection, and obstructive airway disease has been extensively studied, but there are very few studies regarding its use in cardiogenic pulmonary edema. This review provides the current understanding of the physiological effect of HFNC and its application in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). We conducted a literature search on PubMed using appropriate terms and reviewed relevant articles published within the last 10 years. We found that initial therapy with HFNC in ACPE patients can improve oxygenation and respiratory rate. HFNC can potentially be an alternative to non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation in terms of initial oxygen therapy in patients with ACPE. There is a need for larger prospective studies to evaluate and develop guidelines to consider the use of HFNC in patients with ACPE. We also highlight the fact that if there is no improvement in arterial blood gas parameters after HFNC therapy, initiation of invasive ventilation should not be delayed.