High-flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Efficiency of continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Critically ill patients with COVID-19 develop acute respiratory distress syndrome characterized by relatively well-preserved pulmonary compliance but severe hypoxemia. The challenge in managing such patients lies in optimizing oxygenation, which can be achieved through either high oxygen flow or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. This study was performed to compare the efficiency of two methods of noninvasive oxygen therapy: continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study involved 668 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the "Sf. Apostol Andrei" Emergency Clinical Hospital, Galati, Romania from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 (CPAP, n = 108; HFNO, n = 108).

RESULTS

Mortality was significantly lower in the CPAP and HFNO groups than in the group of patients who underwent intubation and mechanical ventilation after ICU admission. Mortality in the ICU was not significantly different between the CPAP and HFNO groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNO and CPAP represent efficient alternative therapies for patients with severe COVID-19 whose respiratory treatment has failed. Studies involving larger groups of patients are necessary to establish a personalized, more complex management modality for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Effect of noninvasive respiratory support on interstitial lung disease with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Primary studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of noninvasive respiratory supports, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), for improving oxygenation and ventilation in patients with interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and acute respiratory failure (ARF). These studies have not been synthesized and are not included in current practice guidelines. This systematic review with meta-analysis synthesizes studies that compared the effectiveness of NIPPV, HFNC and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for improving oxygenation and ventilation in ILD patients with ARF.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library searches were conducted from inception to August 2023. An additional search of relevant primary literature and review articles was also performed. A random effects model was used to estimate the PF ratio (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen), PaCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide), mortality, intubation rate and hospital length of stay.

Results

Ten studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Noninvasive respiratory supports demonstrated a significant improvement in PF ratio compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT); the mean difference was 55.92 (95% CI [18.85-92.99]; p=0.003). Compared to HFNC, there was a significant increase in PF ratio in NIPPV (mean difference 0.45; 95% CI [0.12-0.79]; p=0.008). There were no mortality and intubation rate benefits when comparing NIPPV and HFNC; the mean difference was 1.1; 95% CI [0.83-1.44]; p=0.51 and 1.86; 95% CI [0.42-8.33]; p=0.42, respectively. In addition, there was a significant decrease in hospital length of stay in HFNC compared to NIPPV (mean difference 9.27; 95% Cl [1.45 - 17.1]; p=0.02).

Conclusions

Noninvasive respiratory supports might be an alternative modality in ILDs with ARF. NIPPV demonstrated a potential to improve the PF ratio compared to HFNC. There was no evidence to support the benefit of NIPPV or HFNC in terms of mortality and intubation rate.

The COVID-19 Driving Force: How It Shaped the Evidence of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) became crucial in treating patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Despite the fear of viral aerosolization, non-invasive respiratory support has gained attention as a way to alleviate ICU overcrowding and reduce the risks associated with intubation. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented increased demand for research, resulting in numerous publications on observational studies, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses in the past three years. This comprehensive narrative overview describes the physiological rationale, pre-COVID-19 evidence, and results of observational studies and randomized control trials regarding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and continuous positive airway pressure in adult patients with COVID-19 and associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The review also highlights the significance of guidelines and recommendations provided by international societies and the need for further well-designed research to determine the optimal use of NIRS in treating this population.

Comparison of the efficacy and comfort of high-flow nasal cannula with different initial flow settings in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been proven effective in improving patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), but a discussion of its use for initial flow settings still need to be provided. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and comfort evaluation of HFNC with different initial flow settings in patients with AHRF.

METHODS

Studies published by October 10, 2022, were searched exhaustively in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed with STATA 17.0 and R software (version 4.2.1). A Bayesian framework was applied for this NMA. Comparisons of competing models based on the deviance information criterion (DIC) were used to select the best model for NMA. The primary outcome is the intubation at day 28. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term mortality, comfort score, length of ICU or hospital stay, and 24-h PaO₂/FiO₂.

RESULTS

This NMA included 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5774 patients. With NIV as the control, the HFNC_high group was significantly associated with lower intubation rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.72 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.56 to 0.93; moderate quality evidence) and short-term mortality (OR 0.81 95% CrI 0.69 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence). Using HFNC_Moderate (Mod) group (mean difference [MD] - 1.98 95% CrI -3.98 to 0.01; very low quality evidence) as a comparator, the HFNC_Low group had a slight advantage in comfort scores but no statistically significant difference. Of all possible interventions, the HFNC_High group had the highest probability of being the best in reducing intubation rates (73.04%), short-term (82.74%) and long-term mortality (67.08%). While surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA) indicated that the HFNC_Low group had the highest probability of being the best in terms of comfort scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The high initial flow settings (50-60 L/min) performed better in decreasing the occurrence of intubation and mortality, albeit with poor comfort scores. Treatment of HFNC for AHRF patients ought to be initiated from moderate flow rates (30-40 L/min), and individualized flow settings can make HFNC more sensible in clinical practice.

Does High Flow Nasal Cannula avoid intubation and improve the mortality of adult patients in acute respiratory failure in the intensive care setting, when compared to others methods as Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Non-Invasive Ventilation? A narrative review

High-flow oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (HFNC) has been used for many years to oxygenate patients in respiratory failure. However, scientific data in literature are divergent about its value to prevent invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality. The use of HFNC has increased following the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review considers the impact of HFNC on intubation rates and mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). HFNC would decrease the use of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to COT and would be equivalent to NIV. Combination of NIV and HFNC would have a benefit compared to NIV alone. Some etiologies of respiratory failure would benefit more from this technique as post-extubation critical ill patient or COVID-19 pneumonia. HFNC seems to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to NIV.

Noninvasive Respiratory Devices in COVID-19

How to cite this article: Mehta C, Mehta Y. Noninvasive Respiratory Devices in COVID-19. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):770-772.

Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the effects of HFNC versus NIV (interface or mode) on clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation [ventilator-free day (VFD)].

RESULTS

In all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84, p = 0.0008, I2 = 60%]; however, in this subgroup, no significant difference in mortality was observed in the NIV-helmet group (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, p = 0.57, I2 = 0%) or NIV-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p = 0.23, I2 = 65%) relative to the HFNC group. There were no differences in intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or days free from invasive mechanical ventilation (VFD) between the HFNC and NIV groups.

CONCLUSION

Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).