Cargando…

Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baldomero, Arianne K, Melzer, Anne, Greer, Nancy, Majeski, Brittany N, Macdonald, Roderick, Wilt, Timothy J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32051320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034956
_version_ 1783501661230071808
author Baldomero, Arianne K
Melzer, Anne
Greer, Nancy
Majeski, Brittany N
Macdonald, Roderick
Wilt, Timothy J
author_facet Baldomero, Arianne K
Melzer, Anne
Greer, Nancy
Majeski, Brittany N
Macdonald, Roderick
Wilt, Timothy J
author_sort Baldomero, Arianne K
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO(2) <90%, PaO(2):FiO(2) ratio ≤300, PaO(2) ≤60 mm Hg, or PaCO(2) ≥45 mm Hg. The intervention is HFNO (humidified oxygen, flow rate ≥20 L/min) compared separately to NIV or COT. The critical outcomes are: all-cause mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, intubation/reintubation (days of intubation), intensive care unit admission/transfers, patient comfort and hospital length of stay. The important outcomes are: delirium, 30-day hospital readmissions, barotrauma, compromised nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition), gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge and skin breakdown or pressure ulcers. We will calculate risk ratios and Peto ORs (for rare events) and corresponding 95% CIs for categorical outcomes. Mean and standardised mean difference will be calculated for continuous outcomes. Where possible and appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome. CONCLUSION: This systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019146691
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7044882
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70448822020-03-09 Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol Baldomero, Arianne K Melzer, Anne Greer, Nancy Majeski, Brittany N Macdonald, Roderick Wilt, Timothy J BMJ Open General practice / Family practice INTRODUCTION: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) use in adults hospitalised with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is increasing. However, evidence to support widespread use of HFNO compared with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) is unclear. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic evidence review regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of adult patients hospitalised with ARF or who developed ARF while hospitalised. ARF will be defined as SpO(2) <90%, PaO(2):FiO(2) ratio ≤300, PaO(2) ≤60 mm Hg, or PaCO(2) ≥45 mm Hg. The intervention is HFNO (humidified oxygen, flow rate ≥20 L/min) compared separately to NIV or COT. The critical outcomes are: all-cause mortality, hospital-acquired pneumonia, intubation/reintubation (days of intubation), intensive care unit admission/transfers, patient comfort and hospital length of stay. The important outcomes are: delirium, 30-day hospital readmissions, barotrauma, compromised nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition), gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge and skin breakdown or pressure ulcers. We will calculate risk ratios and Peto ORs (for rare events) and corresponding 95% CIs for categorical outcomes. Mean and standardised mean difference will be calculated for continuous outcomes. Where possible and appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome. CONCLUSION: This systematic review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence regarding the comparative effectiveness and harms of HFNO compared with NIV or COT for the management of ARF in hospitalised adult patients to inform clinical practice and to identify research gaps in the management of ARF in hospitalised adults. The results will inform the work of the American College of Physicians-Clinical Guidelines Committee in their development of a clinical guideline related to use of HFNO in adult patients with ARF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be needed because we will be using data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the primary investigators. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019146691 BMJ Publishing Group 2020-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7044882/ /pubmed/32051320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034956 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Baldomero, Arianne K
Melzer, Anne
Greer, Nancy
Majeski, Brittany N
Macdonald, Roderick
Wilt, Timothy J
Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
title Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
title_full Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
title_fullStr Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
title_short Effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
title_sort effectiveness and harms of high-flow nasal oxygen (hfno) for acute respiratory failure: a systematic review protocol
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32051320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034956
work_keys_str_mv AT baldomeroariannek effectivenessandharmsofhighflownasaloxygenhfnoforacuterespiratoryfailureasystematicreviewprotocol
AT melzeranne effectivenessandharmsofhighflownasaloxygenhfnoforacuterespiratoryfailureasystematicreviewprotocol
AT greernancy effectivenessandharmsofhighflownasaloxygenhfnoforacuterespiratoryfailureasystematicreviewprotocol
AT majeskibrittanyn effectivenessandharmsofhighflownasaloxygenhfnoforacuterespiratoryfailureasystematicreviewprotocol
AT macdonaldroderick effectivenessandharmsofhighflownasaloxygenhfnoforacuterespiratoryfailureasystematicreviewprotocol
AT wilttimothyj effectivenessandharmsofhighflownasaloxygenhfnoforacuterespiratoryfailureasystematicreviewprotocol