Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving high flow nasal cannula therapy prior to mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: A prospective observational study

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).

High-flow nasal cannula reduces intubation rate in patients with COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT) on intubation rate, 28-day intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs) and ICU length of stay (ICU LOS) in adult patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) associated with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase up to June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Only randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19 were included up to June 2022. Studies conducted on children or pregnant women, and those not published in English were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts. Relevant information was extracted and curated in the tables. The Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan V.5.4 computer software using a random effects model with a 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test (χ²) and Higgins I² statistics, with subgroup analyses to account for sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 3370 (1480 received HFNC) were included. HFNC reduced the intubation rate compared with COT (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, p=0.0007), decreased 28-day ICU mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.97, p=0.04) and improved 28-day VFDs (mean difference (MD) 2.58, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.45, p<0.00001). However, HFNC had no effect on ICU LOS versus COT (MD 0.52, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.06, p=0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that HFNC may reduce intubation rate and 28-day ICU mortality, and improve 28-day VFDs in patients with ARF due to COVID-19 compared with COT. Large-scale randomised controlled trials are necessary to validate our findings.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022345713.

Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy on clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19: A systematic review

Introduction/Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has high transmissibility and mortality rates. High-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) might reduce the need for orotracheal intubation, easing the burden on the health system caused by COVID-19. The objective of the present study was to examine the effectiveness of HFNC in adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Specifically, the present study explores the effects of HFNC on rates of mortality, intubation and intensive care units (ICU) length of stay. The present study also seeks to define predictors of success and failure of HFNC.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases, and the study was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Study Quality Assessment Tools.

Results

The search identified 1,476 unique titles; 95 articles received full-text reviews and 40 studies were included in this review. HFNC was associated with a reduction in the rate of orotracheal intubation, notably when compared to conventional oxygen therapy. Studies reported inconsistency in whether HFNC reduced ICU length of stay or mortality rates. Among the predictors of HFNC failure/success, a ratio of oxygen saturation index of approximately 5 or more was associated with HFNC success.

Conclusion

In adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, HFNC may prove effective in reducing the rate of orotracheal intubation. The ratio of the oxygen saturation index was the parameter most examined as a predictor of HFNC success. Low-level research designs, inherent study weaknesses and inconsistent findings made it impossible to conclude whether HFNC reduces ICU length of stay or mortality. Future studies should employ higher level research designs.

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The COVIDICUS Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.

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

Background:

During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raging around the world, the effectiveness of respiratory support treatment has dominated people’s field of vision. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and value of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for COVID-19 patients.

Methods:

A comprehensive systematic review via PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, WHO database, China Biology Medicine Disc (SINOMED), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyze the results and risk of bias. The primary outcome is the number of deaths at day 28. The secondary outcomes are the occurrence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the number of deaths (no time-limited), length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, ventilator-free days, and oxygenation index [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂)/fraction of inhaled oxygen (FiO₂)] at 24 h.

Results:

In total, nine studies [one randomized controlled trial (RCT), seven retrospective studies, and one prospective study] totaling 1582 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the incidence of IMV, number of deaths (no time-limited), and length of ICU stay were not statistically significant in the HFNC group compared with the NIV group (ps = 0.71, 0.31, and 0.33, respectively). Whereas the HFNC group performed significant advantages in terms of the number of deaths at day 28, length of hospital stay and oxygenation index (p < 0.05). Only in the ventilator-free days did NIV show advantages over the HFNC group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

For COVID-19 patients, the use of HFNC therapy is associated with the reduction of the number of deaths at day 28 and length of hospital stay, and can significantly improve oxygenation index (PaO₂/FiO₂) at 24 h. However, there was no favorable between the HFNC and NIV groups in the occurrence of IMV. NIV group was superior only in terms of ventilator-free days.