Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Maitra, S.; Som, A.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Arora, M.K.; Baidya, D.K.

Journal of Critical Care 35: 138-144

2016


ISSN/ISBN: 0883-9441
PMID: 27481749
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.05.013
Accession: 057468501

Download citation:  
Text
  |  
BibTeX
  |  
RIS

Article/Abstract emailed within 0-6 h
Payments are secure & encrypted
Powered by Stripe
Powered by PayPal

Abstract
The role of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) therapy in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is controversial. This meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been designed to compare HFNO with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy in such patients. Initial database searching revealed 336 RCTs, of which 7 were included in this meta-analysis. Five RCTs compared HFNO with standard oxygen therapy, one compared HFNO with NIV, and one compared all three. HFNO did not decrease the requirement of higher respiratory support compared with control group. HFNO was associated with improved respiratory rate and dyspnea score, and better comfort in 3 RCTs, whereas other studies did not find any difference. High-flow nasal oxygen does not offer any benefit over NIV or conventional oxygen therapy in terms of requirement of higher respiratory support.