Non-rebreather mask and low-flow nasal cannula vs high-flow nasal cannula in severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive methods of respiratory support, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), are potential strategies to prevent progression to requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to understand the utility of noninvasive respiratory support among a homogeneous cohort of patients with contemporary management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. We performed a network meta-analysis of studies evaluating the efficacy of NIV (including CPAP) and HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT), in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched in May 2023. Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used first to estimate all direct pairwise associations and the results from all studies were combined using frequentist network meta-analysis. Primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as discontinuation of HFNO, NIV, or COT despite progressive disease. Secondary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

We included data from eight RCTs with 2302 patients, (756 [33%] assigned to COT, 371 [16%] to NIV, and 1175 [51%] to HFNO). The odds of treatment failure were similar for NIV (P=0.33) and HFNO (P=0.25), and both were similar to that for COT (reference category). The odds of mortality were similar for all three treatments (odds ratio for NIV vs COT: 1.06 [0.46-2.44] and HFNO vs COT: 0.97 [0.57-1.65]).

CONCLUSIONS

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, and conventional oxygen therapy are comparable with regards to treatment failure and mortality in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42023426495.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.

OBJECTIVES

We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.

DESIGN

This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, p = 0.0009, I2 = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, p = 0.0007, I2 = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, p = 0.005, I2 = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 remains uncertain. We aimed at assessing whether HFNC is associated with reduced risk of intubation or mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT).

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing HFNC vs. COT in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, published in English from inception to December 2022. Pediatric studies, studies that compared HFNC with a noninvasive respiratory support other than COT and those in which intubation or mortality were not reported were excluded. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analysis were performed according to statistical heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were risk of intubation and mortality across RCTs. Effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios and 95% confidence interval (RR; 95% CI). Observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were analyzed, accounting for 8383 patients, including 6 RCTs (2509 patients) and 14 observational studies (5874 patients). By pooling the 6 RCTs, HFNC compared with COT significantly reduced the risk of intubation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; p = 0.02) and reduced length of stay in hospital. HFNC did not significantly reduce the risk of mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, HFNC reduced the need for intubation and shortened length of stay in hospital without significant decreased risk of mortality. Trial registration The study was registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ with the trial registration number CRD42022340035 (06/20/2022).