The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen for asthma control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control remains controversial. AIM: This meta-analysis aims to explore the influence of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy on asthma control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of high-flow oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for asthma control. RESULTS: Four RCTs are included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared with conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, high-flow oxygen is associated with a significantly lower dyspnoea score (standard mean difference (SMD) = –0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): –1.08 to –0.17; p = 0.008), but reveals no remarkable influence on PaCO(2) (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI: –0.22 to 0.77; p = 0.28), PaO(2) (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI: –1.34 to 2.22; p = 0.63), intubation rate (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.15 to 8.21; p = 0.93) or hospital length of stay (SMD = –0.07; 95% CI: –0.41 to 0.27; p = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: High-flow oxygen may benefit to reduce/may be more beneficial in reducing the dyspnoea score than conventional oxygen therapy for asthma, but shows no improvement in PaCO(2), PaO(2), intubation or hospital length of stay.