The value of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy after extubation in patients with acute respiratory failure

Tools used to assess comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The aims were twofold: (a) to map tools documented in the literature to evaluate comfort among patients undergoing high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment; and (b) to assess if the retrieved tools have been validated for this purpose.

METHODS

A scoping review, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In July 2023, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were consulted. Studies assessing comfort in adult, paediatric, and neonatal patients undergoing HFNC were included.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles were included, among which nine (12.2 %) investigated comfort as the primary aim. Twenty-five different tools were found, classifiable into 14 types, mostly unidimensional and originating from those measuring pain. The most widely used was the Visual Analogic Scale (n = 27, 35.6 %) followed by the Numerical Rating Scale (n = 11, 14.5 %) and less defined generic tools (n = 10, 13.2 %) with different metrics (e.g. 0-5, 0-10, 0-100). Only the General Comfort Questionnaire and the Comfort Scale were specifically validated for the assessment of comfort among adults and children, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although the comfort of patients undergoing HFNC is widely investigated in the literature, there is a scarcity of tools specifically validated in this field. Those used have been validated mainly to assess pain, suggesting the need to inform patients to prevent confusion while measuring comfort during HFNC and to develop more research in the field.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Comfort assessment is an important aspect of nursing care. Given the lack of validation studies in the field, efforts in research are recommended.

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.

Ventilator Weaning and Extubation

Increasing evidence supports specific approaches to liberate patients from invasive ventilation including the use of liberation protocols, inspiratory assistance during spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs), early extubation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to noninvasive ventilation, and prophylactic use of noninvasive support strategies after extubation. Additional research is needed to elucidate the best criteria to identify patients who are ready to undergo an SBT and to inform optimal screening frequency, the best SBT technique and duration, extubation assessments, and extubation decision-making. Additional clarity is also needed regarding the optimal timing to measure and report extubation success.

Liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients: Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation is one of the most crucial processes in critical care because it is the first step by which a respiratory failure patient begins to transition out of the intensive care unit and return to their own life. Therefore, when devising appropriate strategies for removing mechanical ventilation, it is essential to consider not only the individual experiences of healthcare professionals, but also scientific and systematic approaches. Recently, numerous studies have investigated methods and tools for identifying when mechanically ventilated patients are ready to breathe on their own. The Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine therefore provides these recommendations to clinicians about liberation from the ventilator.

METHODS

Meta-analyses and comprehensive syntheses were used to thoroughly review, compile, and summarize the complete body of relevant evidence. All studies were meticulously assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the outcomes were presented succinctly as evidence profiles. Those evidence syntheses were discussed by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in mechanical ventilation, who then developed and approved recommendations.

RESULTS

Recommendations for nine PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions about ventilator liberation are presented in this document. This guideline includes seven conditional recommendations, one expert consensus recommendation, and one conditional deferred recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed these clinical guidelines for mechanical ventilation liberation to provide meaningful recommendations. These guidelines reflect the best treatment for patients seeking liberation from mechanical ventilation.

Impact of different oxygen therapy strategies on the risk of endotracheal reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a crucial intervention for the support of patients with acute and severe respiratory failure in modern intensive care medicine. However, the mechanical forces resulting from the interplay between the ventilator and the respiratory system may cause pulmonary injury.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and other oxygen therapy modalities on the risk of endotracheal reintubation in mechanically ventilated patients after extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

An electronic search was carried out across various databases including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, VIP, and Wanfang. The objective of this search was to locate prospective randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of multiple oxygen therapy approaches on the incidence of reintubation in patients in the ICU after undergoing mechanical ventilation. The meta package in R language was used to analyze parameters adopted by the included studies such as reintubation rate, mortality rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 22 articles, involving 4,160 participants, with 2,061 in the study group and 2,099 in the control group. Among these, 20 articles presented data on the reintubation rate of the patients included with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.09) for HFNC and an OR of 1.77 (95% CI: 0.93, 3.38) for HFNC in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subgroup. Moreover, 10 articles assessed the incidence of respiratory failure after extubation, revealing an OR for HFNC was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.84) using a fixed-effects model. Nine articles addressed ICU mortality, while 13 pieces of literature examined hospital mortality. HFNC showed no significant impact on either ICU mortality or hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

HFNC therapy markedly reduces the incidence of respiratory failure in mechanically ventilated patients following extubation in the ICU. Furthermore, it specifically reduces the risk of reintubation in patients diagnosed with COPD.

High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in term infants

BACKGROUND

Respiratory failure or respiratory distress in infants is the most common reason for non-elective admission to hospitals and neonatal intensive care units. Non-invasive methods of respiratory support have become the preferred mode of treating respiratory problems as they avoid some of the complications associated with intubation and mechanical ventilation. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is increasingly being used as a method of non-invasive respiratory support. However, the evidence pertaining to its use in term infants (defined as infants ≥ 37 weeks gestational age to the end of the neonatal period (up to one month postnatal age)) is limited and there is no consensus of opinion regarding the safety and efficacy HFNC in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for respiratory support in term infants when compared with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in December 2022: Cochrane CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; LILACS; Web of Science; Scopus. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and performed a supplementary search of Google Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in infants ≥ 37 weeks gestational age up to one month postnatal age (the end of the neonatal period).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis using mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For statistically significant RRs, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (654 participants) in this review. Six of these studies (625 participants) contributed data to our primary analyses. Four studies contributed to our comparison of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for respiratory support in term infants. The outcome of death was reported in two studies (439 infants) but there were no events in either group. HFNC may have little to no effect on treatment failure, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.04; 3 trials, 452 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome of chronic lung disease (need for supplemental oxygen at 28 days of life) was reported in one study (375 participants) but there were no events in either group. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support (any form of non-invasive respiratory support with or without supplemental oxygen), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 days, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.61; 4 trials, 530 infants; very low-certainty evidence). HFNC likely results in little to no difference in the length of stay at the intensive care unit (ICU) (MD 0.90 days, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.12; 3 trials, 452 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC may reduce the incidence of nasal trauma (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.66; 1 trial, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and abdominal overdistension (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71; 1 trial, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Two studies contributed to our analysis of HFNC versus low flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (LFNC) (supplemental oxygen up to a maximum flow rate of 2 L/min). The outcome of death was reported in both studies (95 infants) but there were no events in either group. The evidence suggests that HFNC may reduce treatment failure slightly (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92; 2 trials, 95 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported results for the outcome of chronic lung disease (need for supplemental oxygen at 28 days of life). HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support (MD -0.07 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.69; 1 trial, 74 infants; very low-certainty evidence), length of stay at the ICU (MD 0.49 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.81; 1 trial, 74 infants; very low-certainty evidence), or hospital length of stay (MD -0.60 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 0.86; 2 trials, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse events was an outcome reported in both studies (95 infants) but there were no events in either group. The risk of bias across outcomes was generally low, although there were some concerns of bias. The certainty of evidence across outcomes ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with CPAP, HFNC may result in little to no difference in treatment failure. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support, but the evidence is very uncertain. HFNC likely results in little to no difference in the length of stay at the intensive care unit. HFNC may reduce the incidence of nasal trauma and abdominal overdistension, but the evidence is very uncertain. When compared with LFNC, HFNC may reduce treatment failure slightly. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support, length of stay at the ICU, or hospital length of stay, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to enable the formulation of evidence-based guidelines on the use of HFNC for respiratory support in term infants. Larger, methodologically robust trials are required to further evaluate the possible health benefits or harms of HFNC in this patient population.

Noninvasive respiratory support after extubation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), including high-flow nasal oxygen, bi-level positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure (noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), for preventing and treating post-extubation respiratory failure is still unclear. Our objective was to assess the effects of NRS on post-extubation respiratory failure, defined as re-intubation secondary to post-extubation respiratory failure (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), discomfort, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and time to re-intubation. Subgroup analyses considered "prophylactic" versus "therapeutic" NRS application and subpopulations (high-risk, low-risk, post-surgical and hypoxaemic patients).

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis (Research Registry: reviewregistry1435). PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus and Web of Science were searched (from inception until 22 June 2022). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of NRS after extubation in ICU adult patients were included.

RESULTS

32 RCTs entered the quantitative analysis (5063 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, NRS overall reduced re-intubations and VAP (moderate certainty). NIV decreased hospital mortality (moderate certainty), and hospital and ICU LOS (low and very low certainty, respectively), and increased discomfort (moderate certainty). Prophylactic NRS did not prevent extubation failure in low-risk or hypoxaemic patients.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic NRS may reduce the rate of post-extubation respiratory failure in ICU patients.

Reintubation in COVID-19 patients: a multicenter observational study in Japan (J-RECOVER study)

BACKGROUND

Reintubation is not an uncommon occurrence following extubation and discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. In COVID-19 patients, the proportion of reintubation may be higher than that of non-COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients may have a higher risk for developing laryngotracheal stenosis, along with a higher proportion of reintubation than in non-COVID-19 patients. Our understanding of the proportion of reintubation in COVID-19 patients is limited in Japan. Additionally, the reasons for reintubation have not been adequately examined in previous studies outside of Japan. Thus, the present study aimed to describe the proportion and causes of reintubation among COVID-19 patients in Japan.

METHODS

This was a multicenter observational study that included 64 participating centers across Japan. This study included mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients who were discharged between April 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020. The outcomes examined were the proportion and causes of reintubation.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients were eligible for inclusion in the current analysis. The median age of patients was 64 years and 80.4% were male. Reintubation was required for 35 patients (9.4%) and the most common causes for reintubation were respiratory failure (71.4%; n = 25) and laryngotracheal stenosis (8.6%; n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of reintubation among COVID-19 patients in Japan was relatively low. Respiratory failure was the most common cause for reintubation. Reintubation due to laryngotracheal stenosis accounted for only a small fraction of all reintubated COVID-19 patients in Japan.

Efficacy of preventive use of oxygen therapy after planned extubation in high-risk patients with extubation failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Extubation failure is common in critically ill patients, especially those with high-risk factors, and is associated with poor prognosis. Prophylactic use of oxygen therapy after extubation has been gradually introduced. However, the best respiratory support method is still unclear.

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of four post-extubation respiratory support approaches in reducing reintubation and respiratory failure in patients at high-risk of extubation failure.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing post-extubation preventive use of respiratory management strategies, including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and high-flow nasal catheter (HFNC) in high-risk patients with extubation failure were reviewed. Primary outcomes were reintubation rate and respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU stay and length of hospital stay (LOS).

Results

Seventeen RCTs comprising 2813 participants were enrolled. Compared with COT, the three respiratory support methods (NIV, HFNC, NIV + HFNC) were all effective in preventing reintubation [odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32–0.67; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14–0.48; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39–0.97, respectively] and respiratory failure (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10–0.52; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04–0.60; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10–0.72, respectively). NIV and NIV + HFNC also reduced ICU mortality (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.74; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12–0.85). NIV + HFNC ranked best in terms of reintubation rate, respiratory failure and ICU mortality based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) (99.3, 87.1, 88.2, respectively). Although there was no significant difference in shortening ICU stay and LOS among the four methods, HFNC ranked first based on the SUCRA.

Conclusion

Preventive use of NIV + HFNC after scheduled extubation is probably the most effective respiratory support method for preventing reintubation, respiratory failure and ICU death in high-risk patients with extubation failure. HFNC alone seems to be the best method to shorten ICU stay and LOS.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022340623].

Noninvasive respiratory support following extubation in critically ill adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in reducing extubation failure among critically ill adults.

METHODS

We searched databases from inception through October 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating noninvasive respiratory support therapies (NIPPV, HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy, or a combination of these) following extubation in critically ill adults. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of our findings.

RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs (6806 patients). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIPPV (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82]) and HFNC (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87]) reduced reintubation (both moderate certainty). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effect was highest in patients with increased baseline risk of reintubation. As compared to HFNC, no difference in incidence of reintubation was seen with NIPPV (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38], low certainty). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, neither NIPPV (OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04], moderate certainty) or HFNC (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24], low certainty) reduced short-term mortality. Consistent findings were demonstrated across multiple subgroups, including high- and low-risk patients. These results were replicated when evaluating noninvasive strategies for prevention (prophylaxis), but not in rescue (application only after evidence of deterioration) situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that both NIPPV and HFNC reduced reintubation in critically ill adults, compared to conventional oxygen therapy. NIPPV did not reduce incidence of reintubation when compared to HFNC. These findings support the preventative application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies to mitigate extubation failure in critically ill adults, but not in rescue conditions.

Management of Adult Patients With Oxygen in the Acute Care Setting

Providing supplemental oxygen to hospitalized adults is a frequent practice and can be administered via a variety of devices. Oxygen therapy has evolved over the years, and clinicians should follow evidence-based practices to provide maximum benefit and avoid harm. This systematic review and subsequent clinical practice guidelines were developed to answer questions about oxygenation targets, monitoring, early initiation of high-flow oxygen (HFO), benefits of HFO compared to conventional oxygen therapy, and humidification of supplemental oxygen. Using a modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, 7 recommendations were developed to guide the delivery of supplemental oxygen to hospitalized adults: (1) aim for S_pO2 range of 94-98% for most hospitalized patients (88-92% for those with COPD), (2) the same S_pO2 range of 94-98% for critically ill patients, (3) promote early initiation of HFO, (4) consider HFO to avoid escalation to noninvasive ventilation, (5) consider HFO immediately postextubation to avoid re-intubation, (6) either HFO or conventional oxygen therapy may be used with patients who are immunocompromised, and (7) consider humidification for supplemental oxygen when flows > 4 L/min are used.

ERS Clinical Practice Guidelines: High-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used non-invasive form of respiratory support in acute settings, however evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The European Respiratory Society Task Force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The Task Force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methods to summarize evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF.

RESULTS

The Task Force developed 8 conditional recommendations, suggesting using: 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxemic ARF, 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxemic ARF, 3)HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV, 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications, 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications, 6) HFNC over COT in non-surgical patients at low risk of extubation failure, 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV, 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic ARF.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of non-invasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

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).

Appropriate Use of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Hospitalized Patients for Initial or Postextubation Management of Acute Respiratory Failure: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure. It is based on the best available evidence on the benefits and harms of HFNO, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of HFNO. The patient-centered health outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day hospital readmissions, hospital-acquired pneumonia, days of intubation or reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU transfers, patient comfort, dyspnea, delirium, barotrauma, compromised nutrition, gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge, discharge disposition, and skin breakdown. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated in a hospital setting (including emergency departments, hospital wards, intermediate or step-down units, and ICUs).

RECOMMENDATION 1A

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than noninvasive ventilation in hospitalized adults for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 1B

ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than conventional oxygen therapy for hospitalized adults with postextubation acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Noninvasive Respiratory Support

Despite its life-saving nature, invasive mechanical ventilation does not come without risk, and the avoidance of invasive mechanical ventilation is the primary goal of noninvasive respiratory support. Noninvasive respiratory support in the form of continuous or bi-level positive airway pressure were considered the only viable options to accomplish this for many years. Innovation and research have led to high-flow nasal cannula being added to the list of specialized therapies clinically shown to reduce escalation of care and intubation rates in patients presenting with acute respiratory failure. The amount of research being performed in this clinical space is impressive, to say the least, and it is rapidly evolving. It is the responsibility of the clinicians trained to use these therapies in the management of respiratory failure to understand the currently available evidence, benefits, and risks associated with the type of noninvasive respiratory support being used to treat our patients.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately Postextubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Reintubation after failed extubation is associated with increased mortality and longer hospital length of stay. Noninvasive oxygenation modalities may prevent reintubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula after extubation in critically ill adults.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials comparing high-flow nasal cannula to other noninvasive methods of oxygen delivery after extubation in critically ill adults.

DATA EXTRACTION

We included the following outcomes: reintubation, postextubation respiratory failure, mortality, use of noninvasive ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, complications, and comfort.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1,594 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula decreased reintubation (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70; moderate certainty) and postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91; very low certainty), but had no effect on mortality (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.52; moderate certainty), or ICU length of stay (mean difference, 0.05 d fewer; 95% CI, 0.83 d fewer to 0.73 d more; high certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may decrease use of noninvasive ventilation (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34-1.22; moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0.98 d fewer; 95% CI, 2.16 d fewer to 0.21 d more; moderate certainty) compared with conventional oxygen therapy, however, certainty was limited by imprecision. Compared with noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula had no effect on reintubation (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.57; low certainty), mortality (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.82-1.53; moderate certainty), or postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; very low certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may reduce ICU length of stay (moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (moderate certainty) compared with noninvasive ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula reduces reintubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but not compared with noninvasive ventilation after extubation.

Post-extubation oxygenation strategies in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation (HFNC) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) possibly decrease tracheal reintubation rates better than conventional oxygen therapy (COT); however, few large-scale studies have compared HFNC and NPPV. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of three post-extubation respiratory support devices (HFNC, NPPV, and COT) in reducing the mortality and reintubation risk.

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. COT, NPPV, and HFNC use were assessed in patients who were aged ≥ 16 years, underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for > 12 h for acute respiratory failure, and were scheduled for extubation after spontaneous breathing trials. The GRADE Working Group Approach was performed using a frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effect meta-analysis. Short-term mortality and reintubation and post-extubation respiratory failure rates were compared.

Results

After evaluating 4631 records, 15 studies and 2600 patients were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Although NPPV/HFNC use did not significantly lower the mortality risk (relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.75 [0.53–1.06] and 0.92 [0.67–1.27]; low and moderate certainty, respectively), HFNC use significantly lowered the reintubation risk (0.54 [0.32–0.89]; high certainty) compared to COT use. The associations of mortality with NPPV and HFNC use with respect to either outcome did not differ significantly (short-term mortality and reintubation, relative risk [95% confidence interval] 0.81 [0.61–1.08] and 1.02 [0.53–1.97]; moderate and very low certainty, respectively).

Conclusion

NPPV or HFNC use may not reduce the risk of short-term mortality; however, they may reduce the risk of endotracheal reintubation.

Trial registration number and date of registration

PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139112, 01/21/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03550-4.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: a clinical practice guideline

Purpose

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings.

Methods

We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions.

Results

The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty).

Conclusions

This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06312-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation for preventing reintubation: a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Adequate respiratory support can improve clinical outcomes in patients who are ready for weaning from a ventilator. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of respiratory methods in adults undergoing planned extubation using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing trials up to November 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that compared conventional oxygen therapy (COT), a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for post-extubation respiratory support. Screening of citations, study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk were performed independently by two authors. The primary outcome was the reintubation rate.

Results

Twenty-two studies (4,218 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. Extubated patients supported with NIV had a significantly lower incidence of reintubation than those supported with COT [odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42, 0.89]. However, there was no significant difference in the reintubation rate between the HFNC and NIV, and HFNC and COT groups (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.81; OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33, 1.02, respectively). HFNC and NIV reduced the incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.93; OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.87, respectively) and post-extubation acute respiratory failure (ARF) (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.89; OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.63, respectively) compared with COT. There was no significant difference in a decreased incidence of HAP (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.8) or post-extubation ARF (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33, 2.1) between NIV and HFNC. There were also no significant differences in improvements in other clinical outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and the length of stay (LOS) between NIV and HFNC.

Conclusions

NIV reduces the reintubation rate in adult patients undergoing planned extubation compared with COT and HFNC.

Comparison of Postextubation Outcomes Associated with High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs. Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Patients at High Risk of Reintubation: a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Liberation and extubation are important for patients supported by mechanical ventilation. Extubation success is related to the duration of an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality rate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has physiological and clinical benefits in respiratory care. The present study compared clinical outcomes associated with HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) among patients at high risk for reintubation.

METHODS

A single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted between March 2018 and June 2019. Sixty adults admitted to the ICU and who were at high-risk of reintubation and met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. "High risk" for reintubation was defined as having at least one of the following risk factors: age > 65 years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > 12 points on extubation day, obesity, poor expectoration, airway patency problems, difficult or prolonged weaning, and more than one comorbidity. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included duration of ICU and hospital stay, mortality rate, and time to reintubation.

RESULTS

Of 60 patients, 31 received HFNC and 29 received COT (mean age, 78 ± 7.8 vs. 76 ± 6.5 years, respectively). Reintubation rate within 72 hours did not differ between the groups (3 patients [9.7%] vs. 1 patient [3.4%], respectively). Reintubation time was shorter among patients who received COT than among patients who received HFNC (0.5 hour vs. 25 hours), but this difference was not statistically significant. Duration of ICU did not differ between the groups (14.7 ± 9.6 days vs. 13.8 ± 15.7 days, for HFNC and COT, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Among patients at high risk for reintubation, compared with COT, HFNC did not reduce the risk of reintubation within 72 hours.

Preventive use of respiratory support after scheduled extubation in critically ill medical patients-a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Respiratory support has been increasingly used after extubation for the prevention of re-intubation and improvement of prognosis in critically ill medical patients. However, the optimal respiratory support method is still under debate. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various respiratory support methods used for preventive purposes after scheduled extubation in critically ill medical patients.

METHODS

A systematic database search was performed from inception to December 19, 2019, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a preventive use of different respiratory support methods, including conventional oxygen therapy (COT), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT), and combinational use of HFOT and NIV (HFOT+NIV), after planned extubation in adult critically ill medical patients. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes included re-intubation rate and short-term mortality.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs comprising 3341 participants with 4 comparisons were included. Compared with COT, NIV significantly reduced the re-intubation rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.77; moderate quality of evidence] and short-term mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91; moderate quality of evidence). Compared to COT, HFOT had a beneficial effect on the re-intubation rate (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.86; moderate quality of evidence) but no effect on short-term mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12; low quality of evidence). No significant difference in the re-intubation rate or short-term mortality was found among NIV, HFOT, and HFOT+NIV. The treatment rankings based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) from best to worst for re-intubation rate were HFOT+NIV (95.1%), NIV (53.4%), HFOT (51.2%), and COT (0.3%), and the rankings for short-term mortality were NIV (91.0%), HFOT (54.3%), HFOT+NIV (43.7%), and COT (11.1%). Sensitivity analyses of trials with a high risk of extubation failure for the primary outcomes indicated that the SUCRA rankings were comparable to those of the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

After scheduled extubation, the preventive use of NIV is probably the most effective respiratory support method for comprehensively preventing re-intubation and short-term death in critically ill medical patients, especially those with a high risk of extubation failure.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and hypoxia during gastroscopy with propofol sedation: a randomized multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hypoxia is one of the most frequent adverse events with sedated GI endoscopy and can lead to serious consequences. No modalities have been found previously to prevent hypoxia. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) supportive oxygen therapy provides heated and humidified oxygen up to 60 L/minute. Because of its ability to improve respiratory function and good tolerance, we aimed to evaluate the validity and safety of HFNC supportive oxygen therapy in preventing the incidence of hypoxia in patients undergoing gastroscopy with propofol sedation.

METHODS

In a multicenter, prospective randomized single-blinded study, 1994 outpatients undergoing routine gastroscopy with propofol sedation provided by an anesthesiologist were randomized into 2 groups: the nasal cannula group (O₂ [2 L/minute] was supplied via an HFNC) and the HFNC group (O₂ [30-60 L/minute] was supplied via an HFNC) at 3 centers from November 2017 to February 2018. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia. Other adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

HFNC supportive oxygen therapy decreased the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ Spo₂ < 90% for <60 seconds) and severe hypoxia (Spo₂ < 75% for any duration or 75% ≤ Spo₂ < 90% for ≥60 seconds) from 8.4% to 0% (P < .001) and from 0.6% to 0% (P = .03), respectively. The only HFNC-related adverse event was xeromycteria/rhinalgia (1.7%), which was observed 1 minute after the procedure and disappeared after 30 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC supportive oxygen therapy can prevent the incidence of hypoxia and severe hypoxia in patients in America Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II undergoing elective gastroscopy under propofol sedation, with minimal related adverse events and good tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03332433.).

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy in postoperative patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on the reintubation rate, rate of escalation of respiratory support and clinical outcomes in postextubation adult surgical patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Index and Wan fang databases were searched up to August 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies in postoperative adult surgical patients (≥18 years), receiving HFNC or COT applied immediately after extubation that reported reintubation, escalation of respiratory support, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) and mortality were eligible for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The following data were extracted from the included studies: first author's name, year of publication, study population, country of origin, study design, number of patients, patients' baseline characteristics and outcomes. Associations were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 10 studies (1327 patients). HFNC significantly reduced the reintubation rate (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61, p<0.0001) and rate of escalation of respiratory support (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.73, p=0.002) in postextubation surgical patients compared with COT. There were no differences in the incidence of PPCs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08, p=0.21) or mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.29, p=0.14).

CONCLUSION

HFNC is associated with a significantly lower reintubation rate and rate of escalation of respiratory support compared with COT in postextubation adult surgical patients, but there is no difference in the incidence of PPCs or mortality. More well-designed, large randomised controlled trials are needed to determine the subpopulation of patients who are most likely to benefit from HFNC therapy.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients after planned extubation remains inconclusive. We aimed to perform a rigorous and comprehensive systematic meta-analysis to robustly quantify the benefits of HFNC for patients after planned extubation by investigating postextubation respiratory failure and other outcomes.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2018. Two researchers screened studies and collected the data independently. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies were included. The main outcome was postextubation respiratory failure.

RESULTS

Ten studies (seven RCTs and three crossover studies; HFNC group: 856 patients; Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group: 852 patients) were included. Compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41, 0.92; z = 2.38; P = 0.02) and respiratory rates (standardized mean differences (SMD), - 0.70; 95% CI, - 1.16, - 0.25; z = 3.03; P = 0.002) and increase PaO₂ (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.04, 0.56; z = 2.23; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in reintubation rate, length of ICU and hospital stay, comfort score, PaCO₂, mortality in ICU and hospital, and severe adverse events between HFNC and COT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure and respiratory rates, increase PaO₂, and be safely administered in patients after planned extubation. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm our results.

Protecting Postextubation Respiratory Failure and Reintubation by High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared to Low-Flow Oxygen System: Single Center Retrospective Study and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) reduced postextubation respiratory failure (PERF) and reintubation rate compared to use of a low-flow oxygen system (LFOS) in low-risk patients. However, no obvious conclusion was reached for high-risk patients. Here, we sought to present the current status of HFNC use as adjunctive oxygen therapy in a clinical setting and to elucidate the nature of the protective effect following extubation.

METHODS

The medical records of 855 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit of single university hospital during a period of 5.5 years were analyzed retrospectively, with only 118 patients ultimately included in the present research. The baseline characteristics of these patients and the occurrence of PERF and reintubation along with physiologic changes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients underwent HFNC, and the remaining 34 patients underwent conventional LFOS after extubation. Physicians preferred HFNC to LFOS in the face of high-risk features including old age, neurologic disease, moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a long duration of mechanical ventilation, low baseline arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, and a high baseline alveolar-arterial oxygen difference. The reintubation rate at 72 hours after extubation was not different (9.5% vs. 8.8%; P=1.000). Hypoxic respiratory failure was slightly higher in the nonreintubation group than in the reintubation group (31.9% vs. 6.7%; P=0.058). Regarding physiologic effects, heart rate was only stabilized after 24 hours of extubation in the HFNC group.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the occurrence of PERF and reintubation between both groups. It is worth noting that similar PERF and reintubation ratios were shown in the HFNC group in those with certain exacerbating risk factors versus not. Caution is needed regarding delayed reintubation in the HFNC group.

High-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure and after extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used as an initial support strategy for patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and after extubation. However, no clear evidence exists to support or oppose HFNC use in clinical practice. We summarized the effects of HFNC, compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), on important outcomes including treatment failure and intubation/reintubation rates in adult patients with ARF and after extubation.

Methods

We searched 4 electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of HFNC with either COT or NIV on rates of 1) treatment failure and 2) intubation/reintubation in adult critically ill patients.

Results

We identified 18 RCTs (n = 4251 patients) in pooled analyses. As a primary mode of support, HFNC treatment reduced the risk of treatment failure [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43–0.98; p = 0.04; I² = 32%] but had no effect on preventing intubation (OR, 0.74; 95%CI 0.45–1.21; p = 0.23; I² = 0%) compared to COT. When used after extubation, HFNC (vs. COT) treatment significantly decreased reintubation rate (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.33–0.63; p < 0.00001; I² = 30%) and extubation failure (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.25–0.73; p = 0.002; I² = 66%). Compared to NIV, HFNC significantly reduced intubation rate (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.36–0.92; p = 0.02; I² = 0%) when used as initial support, but did no favorably impact clinical outcomes post extubation in few trials.

Conclusions

HFNC was superior to COT in reducing treatment failure when used as a primary support strategy and in reducing rates of extubation failure and reintubation when used after extubation. In few trials, HFNC reduced intubation rate compared to NIV when used as initial support but demonstrated no beneficial effects after extubation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-018-0908-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy vs conventional oxygen therapy on adult postcardiothoracic operation: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on adult post cardiothoracic operation remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on postcardiothoracic surgery.

METHODS

A search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid, and Cochrane databases until December, 2017 for all the controlled study to compare HFNC with COT in adult postcardiothoracic surgery. Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of each study independently. The meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support rate and pulmonary complications; secondary outcome included the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and length of hospital stay and the rate of intubation.

RESULTS

Four studies that involved 649 patients were included in the analysis. No significant heterogeneity was found in outcome measures. Compared with COT, HFNC were associated with a significant reduction in the escalation of respiratory support (odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29-0.66, P < .001) and pulmonary complications (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.13-0.6, P = .001). There were no significant differences in the reintubation rate (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.02-5.39, P = .43), length of ICU stay (weighted mean difference = 0.11; 95% CI = -0.44 -0.26, P = .14) or length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.46 -0.17, P = .36) between the 2 groups. No severe complications were reported in either group.

CONCLUSION

The HFNC could reduce respiratory support and pulmonary complications, and it could be safely administered for adult postcardiothoracic surgery. Further large-scale, randomized, and controlled trials are needed to update this finding.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adult patients experiencing acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU).

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated studies that included participants 16 years of age and older who were admitted to the ICU and required treatment with HFNC. We assessed the safety and efficacy of HFNC compared with comparator interventions in terms of treatment failure, mortality, adverse events, duration of respiratory support, hospital and ICU length of stay, respiratory effects, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Web of Science, proceedings from four conferences, and clinical trials registries; and we handsearched reference lists of relevant studies. We conducted searches from January 2000 to March 2016 and reran the searches in December 2016. We added four new studies of potential interest to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into formal review findings during the review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled studies with a parallel or cross-over design comparing HFNC use in adult ICU patients versus other forms of non-invasive respiratory support (low-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae or mask, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 1972 participants. Participants in six studies had respiratory failure, and in five studies required oxygen therapy after extubation. Ten studies compared HFNC versus low-flow oxygen devices; one of these also compared HFNC versus CPAP, and another compared HFNC versus BiPAP alone. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately and provided inconsistent details of outcome assessor blinding. We did not combine data for CPAP and BiPAP comparisons with data for low-flow oxygen devices; study data were insufficient for separate analysis of CPAP and BiPAP for most outcomes. For the primary outcomes of treatment failure (1066 participants; six studies) and mortality (755 participants; three studies), investigators found no differences between HFNC and low-flow oxygen therapies (risk ratio (RR), Mantel-Haenszel (MH), random-effects 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.27; and RR, MH, random-effects 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06, respectively). We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of this evidence to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. Reported adverse events included nosocomial pneumonia, oxygen desaturation, visits to general practitioner for respiratory complications, pneumothorax, acute pseudo-obstruction, cardiac dysrhythmia, septic shock, and cardiorespiratory arrest. However, single studies reported adverse events, and we could not combine these findings; one study reported fewer episodes of oxygen desaturation with HFNC but no differences in all other reported adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for adverse events to low because of limited data. Researchers noted no differences in ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), inverse variance (IV), random-effects 0.15, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.34; four studies; 770 participants), and we downgraded quality to low because of study risks of bias and different participant indications. We found no differences in oxygenation variables: partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (MD, IV, random-effects 7.31, 95% CI -23.69 to 41.31; four studies; 510 participants); PaO2 (MD, IV, random-effects 2.79, 95% CI -5.47 to 11.05; three studies; 355 participants); and oxygen saturation (SpO2) up to 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects 0.72, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.17; four studies; 512 participants). Data from two studies showed that oxygen saturation measured after 24 hours was improved among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects 1.28, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.55; 445 participants), but this difference was small and was not clinically significant. Along with concern about risks of bias and differences in participant indications, review authors noted a high level of unexplained statistical heterogeneity in oxygenation effect estimates, and we downgraded the quality of evidence to very low. Meta-analysis of three comparable studies showed no differences in carbon dioxide clearance among those treated with HFNC (MD, IV, random-effects -0.75, 95% CI -2.04 to 0.55; three studies; 590 participants). Two studies reported no differences in atelectasis; we did not combine these findings. Data from six studies (867 participants) comparing HFNC versus low-flow oxygen showed no differences in respiratory rates up to 24 hours according to type of oxygen delivery device (MD, IV, random-effects -1.51, 95% CI -3.36 to 0.35), and no difference after 24 hours (MD, IV, random-effects -2.71, 95% CI -7.12 to 1.70; two studies; 445 participants). Improvement in respiratory rates when HFNC was compared with CPAP or BiPAP was not clinically important (MD, IV, random-effects -0.89, 95% CI -1.74 to -0.05; two studies; 834 participants). Results showed no differences in patient-reported measures of comfort according to oxygen delivery devices in the short term (MD, IV, random-effects 0.14, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.93; three studies; 462 participants) and in the long term (MD, IV, random-effects -0.36, 95% CI -3.70 to 2.98; two studies; 445 participants); we downgraded the certainty of this evidence to low. Six studies measured dyspnoea on incomparable scales, yielding inconsistent study data. No study in this review provided data on positive end-expiratory pressure measured at the pharyngeal level, work of breathing, or cost comparisons of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to demonstrate whether HFNC was a more effective or safe oxygen delivery device compared with other oxygenation devices in adult ICU patients. Meta-analysis could be performed for few studies for each outcome, and data for comparisons with CPAP or BiPAP were very limited. In addition, we identified some risks of bias among included studies, differences in patient groups, and high levels of statistical heterogeneity for some outcomes, leading to uncertainty regarding the results of our analysis. Consequently, evidence is insufficient to show whether HFNC provides safe and efficacious respiratory support for adult ICU patients.