Cargando…

High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review

Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO (2 )>6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO (2) clearance,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alnajada, Asem Abdulaziz, Blackwood, Bronagh, Mobrad, Abdulmajeed, Akhtar, Adeel, Pavlov, Ivan, Shyamsundar, Murali
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34621510
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52885.2
_version_ 1784570249902817280
author Alnajada, Asem Abdulaziz
Blackwood, Bronagh
Mobrad, Abdulmajeed
Akhtar, Adeel
Pavlov, Ivan
Shyamsundar, Murali
author_facet Alnajada, Asem Abdulaziz
Blackwood, Bronagh
Mobrad, Abdulmajeed
Akhtar, Adeel
Pavlov, Ivan
Shyamsundar, Murali
author_sort Alnajada, Asem Abdulaziz
collection PubMed
description Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO (2 )>6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO (2) clearance, the ability to communicate and comfort. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine whether HFNT in AT2RF improves 1) PaCO (2), 2) clinical and patient-centred outcomes and 3) to assess potential harms. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL  (January 1999-January 2021). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing HFNT with low flow nasal oxygen (LFO) or NIV were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Ottawa-Newcastle scale for cohort studies. Results: From 727 publications reviewed, four RCTs and one cohort study (n=425) were included. In three trials of HFNT vs NIV, comparing PaCO (2) (kPa) at last follow-up time point, there was a significant reduction at four hours (1 RCT; HFNT median 6.7, IQR 5.6 – 7.7 vs NIV median 7.6, IQR 6.3 – 9.3) and no significant difference at  24-hours or five days. Comparing HFNT with LFO, there was no significant difference at 30-minutes. There was no difference in intubation or mortality. Conclusions: This review identified a small number of studies with low to very low certainty of evidence. A reduction of PaCO (2) at an early time point of four hours post-intervention was demonstrated in one small RCT. Significant limitations of the included studies were lack of adequately powered outcomes and clinically relevant time-points and small sample size. Accordingly, systematic review cannot recommend the use of HFNT as the initial management strategy for AT2RF and trials adequately powered to detect clinical and patient-relevant outcomes are urgently warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8453312
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84533122021-10-06 High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review Alnajada, Asem Abdulaziz Blackwood, Bronagh Mobrad, Abdulmajeed Akhtar, Adeel Pavlov, Ivan Shyamsundar, Murali F1000Res Systematic Review Background: Acute type two respiratory failure (AT2RF) is characterized by high carbon dioxide levels (PaCO (2 )>6kPa). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), the current standard of care, has a high failure rate. High flow nasal therapy (HFNT) has potential additional benefits such as CO (2) clearance, the ability to communicate and comfort. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine whether HFNT in AT2RF improves 1) PaCO (2), 2) clinical and patient-centred outcomes and 3) to assess potential harms. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL  (January 1999-January 2021). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing HFNT with low flow nasal oxygen (LFO) or NIV were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias. We used Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Ottawa-Newcastle scale for cohort studies. Results: From 727 publications reviewed, four RCTs and one cohort study (n=425) were included. In three trials of HFNT vs NIV, comparing PaCO (2) (kPa) at last follow-up time point, there was a significant reduction at four hours (1 RCT; HFNT median 6.7, IQR 5.6 – 7.7 vs NIV median 7.6, IQR 6.3 – 9.3) and no significant difference at  24-hours or five days. Comparing HFNT with LFO, there was no significant difference at 30-minutes. There was no difference in intubation or mortality. Conclusions: This review identified a small number of studies with low to very low certainty of evidence. A reduction of PaCO (2) at an early time point of four hours post-intervention was demonstrated in one small RCT. Significant limitations of the included studies were lack of adequately powered outcomes and clinically relevant time-points and small sample size. Accordingly, systematic review cannot recommend the use of HFNT as the initial management strategy for AT2RF and trials adequately powered to detect clinical and patient-relevant outcomes are urgently warranted. F1000 Research Limited 2021-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8453312/ /pubmed/34621510 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52885.2 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Alnajada AA et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Alnajada, Asem Abdulaziz
Blackwood, Bronagh
Mobrad, Abdulmajeed
Akhtar, Adeel
Pavlov, Ivan
Shyamsundar, Murali
High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
title High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
title_full High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
title_fullStr High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
title_short High flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
title_sort high flow nasal oxygen for acute type two respiratory failure: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453312/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34621510
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.52885.2
work_keys_str_mv AT alnajadaasemabdulaziz highflownasaloxygenforacutetypetworespiratoryfailureasystematicreview
AT blackwoodbronagh highflownasaloxygenforacutetypetworespiratoryfailureasystematicreview
AT mobradabdulmajeed highflownasaloxygenforacutetypetworespiratoryfailureasystematicreview
AT akhtaradeel highflownasaloxygenforacutetypetworespiratoryfailureasystematicreview
AT pavlovivan highflownasaloxygenforacutetypetworespiratoryfailureasystematicreview
AT shyamsundarmurali highflownasaloxygenforacutetypetworespiratoryfailureasystematicreview