International Survey of High-Flow Nasal Therapy Use for Respiratory Failure in Adult Patients

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.

Clinical Practice of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in ARDS Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Respiratory Therapists

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an essential non-invasive oxygen therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Despite its wide use, research assessing the knowledge, practice, and barriers to using HFNC among respiratory therapists (RT) is lacking.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among RTs in Saudi Arabia between December 19, 2022, and July 15, 2023. Data were analyzed as means and standard deviation or frequency and percentages. A Chi-square test was used to compare the differences between groups.

Results

A total of 1001 RTs completed the online survey. Two-thirds of the respondents 659 (65.8%) had received training in using HFNC and 785 (78.4%) had used HFNC in clinical settings. The top conditions for HFNC indication were COVID-19 (78%), post-extubation (65%), and do-not-intubate patients (64%). Participants strongly agreed that helping maintain conversation and eating abilities (32.95%) and improving shortness of breath (34.1%) were advantages of HFNC. Surprisingly, 568 (57%) of RT staff did not follow a protocol for HFNC with ARDS patients. When starting HFNC, 40.2% of the participants started with FiO2 of 61% to 80%. Additionally, high percentages of RT staff started with a flow rate between 30 L/minute and 40 L/minute (40.6%) and a temperature of 37°C (57.7%). When weaning ARDS patients, 482 (48.1%) recommended first reducing gas flow by 5-10 L/minute every two to four hours. Moreover, 549 (54.8%) believed that ARDS patients could be disconnected from HFNC if they achieved a flow rate of <20 L/minute and FiO2 of <35%. Lack of knowledge was the most common challenge concerning HFNC implementation.

Conclusion

The findings revealed nuanced applications marked by significant endorsement in certain clinical scenarios and a lack of protocol adherence, underscoring the need for uniform, evidence-based guidelines and enhanced training for RTs. Addressing these challenges is pivotal to optimizing the benefits of HFNC across varied clinical contexts.