Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation as first-line therapy in respiratory failure: a multicenter retrospective study.

Abstract

AimTo identify which subgroups of respiratory failure could benefit more from high‐flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) or non‐invasive ventilation (NIV).MethodsWe undertook a multicenter retrospective study of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) who received HFNC or NIV as first‐line respiratory support between January 2012 and December 2017. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for HFNC versus NIV were calculated for treatment failure and 30‐day mortality in the overall cohort and in patient subgroups.ResultsHigh‐flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and NIV were used in 200 and 378 patients, and the treatment failure and 30‐day mortality rates were 56% and 34% in the HFNC group and 41% and 39% in the NIV group, respectively. The risks of treatment failure and 30‐day mortality were not significantly different between the two groups. In subgroup analyses, HFNC was associated with increased risk of treatment failure in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (adjusted OR 6.26; 95% CI, 2.19–17.87; P < 0.01) and hypercapnia (adjusted OR 3.70; 95% CI, 1.34–10.25; P = 0.01), but the 30‐day mortality was not significantly different in these subgroups. High‐flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy was associated with lower risk of 30‐day mortality in patients with pneumonia (adjusted OR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19–0.94; P = 0.03) and in patients without hypercapnia (adjusted OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30–0.88; P = 0.02).ConclusionHigh‐flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy could be more beneficial than NIV in patients with pneumonia or non‐hypercapnia, but not in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema or hypercapnia.