Respiratory care · 2019
Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy in Immunocompromised Subjects With Acute Respiratory Failure.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Kang Hanyujie, Zhao Zhiling, Tong Zhaohui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Various studies have been performed to examine the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, the results were inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of HFNC oxygen therapy in immunocompromised patients with ARF versus conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV).
METHODS: Relevant studies published prior to May 11, 2019, were systematically searched. The primary outcome was intubation rate; secondary outcomes were mortality (ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, and 90-d mortality) and ICU-acquired infections. Data were pooled using the random effects model.
RESULTS: Of 832 identified studies, 8 were eligible for inclusion in our analysis (N = 2,167 subjects). HFNC was associated with lower intubation rates compared to conventional oxygen therapy (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00, P = .040), but we found no significant difference in the rate between HFNC and NIV (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46-1.19, P = .22). We also found that HFNC did not increase the risk of ICU-acquired infections (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.18, P = .35). However, in comparison to other noninvasive therapies, HFNC exhibited no differences in ICU mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.17, P = .28), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-1.15, P = .48), or 90-d mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.18, P = .82).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HFNC may be a feasible alternative to NIV, with lower intubation rates and no increased risk for ICU-acquired infections compared to standard oxygen therapy. However, HFNC did not appear to reduce mortality in immunocompromised subjects with ARF compared with other noninvasive therapies. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.
METHODS: Relevant studies published prior to May 11, 2019, were systematically searched. The primary outcome was intubation rate; secondary outcomes were mortality (ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, and 90-d mortality) and ICU-acquired infections. Data were pooled using the random effects model.
RESULTS: Of 832 identified studies, 8 were eligible for inclusion in our analysis (N = 2,167 subjects). HFNC was associated with lower intubation rates compared to conventional oxygen therapy (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00, P = .040), but we found no significant difference in the rate between HFNC and NIV (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46-1.19, P = .22). We also found that HFNC did not increase the risk of ICU-acquired infections (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.18, P = .35). However, in comparison to other noninvasive therapies, HFNC exhibited no differences in ICU mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.17, P = .28), in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74-1.15, P = .48), or 90-d mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.18, P = .82).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HFNC may be a feasible alternative to NIV, with lower intubation rates and no increased risk for ICU-acquired infections compared to standard oxygen therapy. However, HFNC did not appear to reduce mortality in immunocompromised subjects with ARF compared with other noninvasive therapies. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.