Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are important treatment approaches for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the differential impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effects of HFNC versus NIV (interface or mode) on clinical outcomes of COVID-19. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (with a control group) of HFNC and NIV in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF published in English before February 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation [ventilator-free day (VFD)]. RESULTS: In all, 23 studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 5354 patients were included. The mortality rate was higher in the NIV group than the HFNC group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.84, p = 0.0008, I2 = 60%]; however, in this subgroup, no significant difference in mortality was observed in the NIV-helmet group (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.63-2.32, p = 0.57, I2 = 0%) or NIV-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) group (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p = 0.23, I2 = 65%) relative to the HFNC group. There were no differences in intubation rate, PaO2/FiO2, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or days free from invasive mechanical ventilation (VFD) between the HFNC and NIV groups. CONCLUSION: Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of helmet or CPAP group. Future large sample RCTs are necessary to prove our findings. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022321997).

Effectiveness of the use of a high-flow nasal cannula to treat COVID-19 patients and risk factors for failure: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally, and many patients with severe cases have received oxygen therapy through a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). OBJECTIVES: We assessed the efficacy of HFNC for treating patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for HFNC failure. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of HFNC in patients with COVID-19 published in English from January 1st, 2020 to August 15th, 2021. The primary aim was to assess intubation, mortality, and failure rates in COVID-19 patients supported by HFNC. Secondary aims were to compare HFNC success and failure groups and to describe the risk factors for HFNC failure. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 2851 patients. The intubation, mortality, and failure rates were 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.51, I2 = 84%), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.19-0.29, I2 = 88%), and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.42-0.51, I2 = 56%), respectively. Compared to the success group, age, body mass index (BMI), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, D-dimer, lactate, heart rate, and respiratory rate were higher and PaO2, PaO2/FiO2, ROX index (the ratio of SpO2/FiO2 to respiratory rate), ROX index after the initiation of HFNC, and duration of HFNC were lower in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). There were also more smokers and more comorbidities in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) revealed that older age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07, P = 0.02, I2 = 88%), a higher white blood cell (WBC) count (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.12, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%), a higher heart rate (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.15-1.76, P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), and a lower ROX index(OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.95, P = 0.03, I2 = 93%) after the initiation of HFNC were all significant risk factors for HFNC failure. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC is an effective way of providing respiratory support in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Older age, a higher WBC count, a higher heart rate, and a lower ROX index after the initiation of HFNC are associated with an increased risk of HFNC failure.

The efficacy and tolerance of prone positioning in non-intubation patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The application of prone positioning with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in non-intubation patients is increasing gradually, applying prone positioning for more high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) patients. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and tolerance of prone positioning combined with non-invasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF or ARDS. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (prospective or retrospective cohort studies, RCTs and case series) published in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2020. We included studies that compared prone and supine positioning with non-invasive respiratory support in awake patients with AHRF or ARDS. The meta-analyses used random effects models. The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 243 patients. The aggregated intubation rate and mortality rate were 33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.42, I2 = 25%], 4% (95% CI: 0.01-0.07, I2 = 0%), respectively, and the intolerance rate was 7% (95% CI: 0.01-0.12, I2 = 5%). Prone positioning increased PaO2/FiO2 [mean difference (MD) = 47.89, 95% CI: 28.12-67.66; p < 0.00001, I2 = 67%] and SpO2 (MD = 4.58, 95% CI: 1.35-7.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 97%), whereas it reduced respiratory rate (MD = -5.01, 95% CI: -8.49 to -1.52, p = 0.005, I2 = 85%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the intubation rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 34% and 21%, respectively; and the mortality rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 6% and 0%, respectively. PaO2/FiO2 and SpO2 were significantly improved in COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: Prone positioning could improve the oxygenation and reduce respiratory rate in both COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients with non-intubated AHRF or ARDS.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.