The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen for asthma control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control remains controversial.

AIM: This meta-analysis aims to explore the influence of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy on asthma control.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control.

RESULTS

Four RCTs are included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared with conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, high-flow oxygen is associated with a significantly lower dyspnoea score (standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.08 to -0.17; p = 0.008), but reveals no remarkable influence on PaCO2 (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI: -0.22 to 0.77; p = 0.28), PaO2 (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.22; p = 0.63), intubation rate (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.15 to 8.21; p = 0.93) or hospital length of stay (SMD = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.27; p = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow oxygen may benefit to reduce/may be more beneficial in reducing the dyspnoea score than conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, but shows no improvement in PaCO2, PaO2, intubation or hospital length of stay.