The Journal of emergency medicine · 2020
Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Immunocompromise and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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 Yiwei, Ni Yuenan, Sun Jikui, Liang Zongan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause of emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is widely used for patients with ARF.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the latest evidence regarding the application of HFNC in immunocompromised patients with ARF.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to January 2019. The primary outcome was short-term mortality and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of ICU stay.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 2,179 immunocompromised subjects with ARF were included. No significant differences for short-term mortality were observed when comparing HFNC with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 1.09; p = 0.25, I2 = 47%) and with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.18; p = 0.16, I2 = 58%). Lower intubation rates were found when comparing HFNC with COT (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.03, I2 = 0%) and no significant difference was found between HFNC and NIV (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.19; p = 0.22, I2 = 67%). The length of ICU stay was similar when comparing HFNC with COT (mean difference [MD] 0.59; 95% CI -1.68 to 2.85; p = 0.61, I2 = 56%), but was significantly shorter when HFNC was compared with NIV (MD -2.13; 95% CI -3.98 to -0.29; p = 0.02, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with use of HFNC when compared with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF. A lower intubation rate than COT and a shorter length of ICU stay than NIV were observed in the HFNC group.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the latest evidence regarding the application of HFNC in immunocompromised patients with ARF.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to January 2019. The primary outcome was short-term mortality and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of ICU stay.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 2,179 immunocompromised subjects with ARF were included. No significant differences for short-term mortality were observed when comparing HFNC with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 1.09; p = 0.25, I2 = 47%) and with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.18; p = 0.16, I2 = 58%). Lower intubation rates were found when comparing HFNC with COT (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.03, I2 = 0%) and no significant difference was found between HFNC and NIV (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.19; p = 0.22, I2 = 67%). The length of ICU stay was similar when comparing HFNC with COT (mean difference [MD] 0.59; 95% CI -1.68 to 2.85; p = 0.61, I2 = 56%), but was significantly shorter when HFNC was compared with NIV (MD -2.13; 95% CI -3.98 to -0.29; p = 0.02, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with use of HFNC when compared with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF. A lower intubation rate than COT and a shorter length of ICU stay than NIV were observed in the HFNC group.