Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Immunocompromise and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.