High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients after planned extubation remains inconclusive. We aimed to perform a rigorous and comprehensive systematic meta-analysis to robustly quantify the benefits of HFNC for patients after planned extubation by investigating postextubation respiratory failure and other outcomes. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2018. Two researchers screened studies and collected the data independently. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and crossover studies were included. The main outcome was postextubation respiratory failure. RESULTS: Ten studies (seven RCTs and three crossover studies; HFNC group: 856 patients; Conventional oxygen therapy (COT) group: 852 patients) were included. Compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41, 0.92; z = 2.38; P = 0.02) and respiratory rates (standardized mean differences (SMD), − 0.70; 95% CI, − 1.16, − 0.25; z = 3.03; P = 0.002) and increase PaO(2) (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.04, 0.56; z = 2.23; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in reintubation rate, length of ICU and hospital stay, comfort score, PaCO(2), mortality in ICU and hospital, and severe adverse events between HFNC and COT group. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with COT, HFNC may significantly reduce postextubation respiratory failure and respiratory rates, increase PaO(2), and be safely administered in patients after planned extubation. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are needed to confirm our results. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2465-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.