The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025
Efficacy of HFNC + NIV as initial oxygen therapy in acute respiratory failure: Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Weizhong, Zhang Pan, Xu Ting, Guo Haiying, Liu Weidong, Li Shunfa, Zhou Yaoying
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Combining non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may offer complementary benefits in acute respiratory failure (ARF). Prior meta-analyses compared monotherapies or post-extubation combination therapy, but none specifically evaluated NIV + HFNC as the initial strategy to prevent intubation or mortality.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of initial NIV + HFNC versus NIV or HFNC monotherapy for preventing intubation and mortality in adults with ARF.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (inception to May 31, 2025) for relevant RCTs. Primary outcome was intubation rate; secondary outcome was mortality. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software. Risk of bias was assessed (Cochrane RoB 2).
RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 764 participants) were included. Compared with monotherapy, combined NIV + HFNC did not significantly affect intubation rates (OR 1.08, 95 % CI 0.79-1.49; P = 0.62; I2 = 23 %) or mortality (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.60-3.34; P = 0.43; I2 = 62 %). Subgroup analyses by control intervention (NIV alone or HFNC alone) and trial design (single-center vs. multi-center) also showed no statistically significant differences. Notably, the largest studies exhibited contrasting trends, potentially attributable to variations in lung-protective ventilation strategies during NIV.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found no significant benefit of initial NIV + HFNC over monotherapy in reducing intubation or mortality in ARF. Future high-quality RCTs should prioritize standardized protocols, explicit lung-protective NIV settings, and larger sample sizes, with particular emphasis on specific ARF phenotypes that may derive maximal benefit from combined therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of initial NIV + HFNC versus NIV or HFNC monotherapy for preventing intubation and mortality in adults with ARF.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (inception to May 31, 2025) for relevant RCTs. Primary outcome was intubation rate; secondary outcome was mortality. Statistical data analysis was performed using RevMan software. Risk of bias was assessed (Cochrane RoB 2).
RESULTS: Six RCTs (N = 764 participants) were included. Compared with monotherapy, combined NIV + HFNC did not significantly affect intubation rates (OR 1.08, 95 % CI 0.79-1.49; P = 0.62; I2 = 23 %) or mortality (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.60-3.34; P = 0.43; I2 = 62 %). Subgroup analyses by control intervention (NIV alone or HFNC alone) and trial design (single-center vs. multi-center) also showed no statistically significant differences. Notably, the largest studies exhibited contrasting trends, potentially attributable to variations in lung-protective ventilation strategies during NIV.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found no significant benefit of initial NIV + HFNC over monotherapy in reducing intubation or mortality in ARF. Future high-quality RCTs should prioritize standardized protocols, explicit lung-protective NIV settings, and larger sample sizes, with particular emphasis on specific ARF phenotypes that may derive maximal benefit from combined therapy.