Critical care medicine · 2017
The Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy on Mortality and Intubation Rate in 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.
Monro-Somerville Thalia, Sim Malcolm, Ruddy James, Vilas Mark, Gillies Michael A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: High-flow nasal cannulae are used in adults with or at risk of acute respiratory failure. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the evidence for their use in this setting.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
STUDY SELECTION: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing administration of high-flow nasal cannulae with usual care (i.e., conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation) in adults with respiratory failure. The primary outcome was hospital mortality; the rate of intubation and assessment of delirium and comfort were secondary outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION: One hundred forty-seven nonduplicate citations were screened, 32 underwent full screening and data extraction, and 14 trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. Nine trials were used in the meta-analysis, including a total of 2,507 subjects.
DATA SYNTHESIS: When high-flow nasal cannulae were compared with usual care, there was no difference in mortality (high-flow nasal cannulae, 60/1,006 [6%] vs usual care, 90/1,106 [8.1%]) (n = 2,112; p = 0.29; I, 25%; fixed effect model: odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.17) or rate of intubation (high-flow nasal cannulae, 119/1,207 [9.9%] vs usual care, 204/1,300 [15.7%]) (n = 2,507; p = 0.08; I, 53%; random effect model: odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37-1.06). A qualitative analysis of 13 studies on tolerability and comfort suggested that high-flow nasal cannulae are associated with improved patient comfort and dyspnea scores. Trial sequential analyses on primary and secondary outcomes suggested that required information size was not reached.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference in mortality or intubation was detected in patients with acute respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannulae compared with usual care. High-flow nasal cannulae seem well tolerated by patients. Further large randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate their utility in this setting.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
STUDY SELECTION: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing administration of high-flow nasal cannulae with usual care (i.e., conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation) in adults with respiratory failure. The primary outcome was hospital mortality; the rate of intubation and assessment of delirium and comfort were secondary outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION: One hundred forty-seven nonduplicate citations were screened, 32 underwent full screening and data extraction, and 14 trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. Nine trials were used in the meta-analysis, including a total of 2,507 subjects.
DATA SYNTHESIS: When high-flow nasal cannulae were compared with usual care, there was no difference in mortality (high-flow nasal cannulae, 60/1,006 [6%] vs usual care, 90/1,106 [8.1%]) (n = 2,112; p = 0.29; I, 25%; fixed effect model: odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.17) or rate of intubation (high-flow nasal cannulae, 119/1,207 [9.9%] vs usual care, 204/1,300 [15.7%]) (n = 2,507; p = 0.08; I, 53%; random effect model: odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37-1.06). A qualitative analysis of 13 studies on tolerability and comfort suggested that high-flow nasal cannulae are associated with improved patient comfort and dyspnea scores. Trial sequential analyses on primary and secondary outcomes suggested that required information size was not reached.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference in mortality or intubation was detected in patients with acute respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannulae compared with usual care. High-flow nasal cannulae seem well tolerated by patients. Further large randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate their utility in this setting.