High-flow Nasal Cannula Group Research Articles

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for elderly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients after extubation: a noninferior randomized controlled trial protocol

IntroductionNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) is widely used for sequential extubation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, NIV may cause many adverse events such as claustrophobia, facial skin compression, air leakage, bloating, and even reflux aspiration, resulting in poor patient compliance/tolerance and high failure rate, especially for older adults who are at high risk of communication difficulties and consciousness disorder. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is a new alternative support to NIV, but whether it can effectively reduce the rate of re-intubation after extubation in elderly patients with COPD remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to explore the safety and efficacy of HFNC versus NIV for elderly COPD patients after extubation.Methods and analysisThis study is an investigator-initiated, single-center, prospective, non-inferior, randomized controlled trial. Elderly patients (age > 65 years) who have received invasive ventilation and was diagnosed with COPD will be randomly assigned to HFNC group or NIV group immediately after extubation with a planned enrollment of 168 patients. The primary outcomes will be reintubation rates at 72 h and 7 days after extubation. Secondary outcomes will include treatment failure, post-extubation vital signs and arterial blood gases, the scores of compliance and comfort of patients, duration of respiratory support after extubation, respiratory support related adverse events, sleep quality scores, usage of sedative and analgesic drugs after extubation, and the incidence of delirium. Additionally, clinical outcomes such as ventilator-free days at 28 days post-randomization, tracheotomy rate, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, ICU and hospital mortality will be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (2023–2284). Informed consent is required. It is expected that a follow-up randomized controlled trial will be conducted. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.Trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ChiCTR2400087312).

Laryngeal mask airway or high flow nasal cannulaversusnasal cannula for advanced bronchoscopy – a randomized controlled trial

Research QuestionAdvanced bronchoscopic procedures became a widely prevalent evaluation and treatment modality. These procedures require appropriate sedation and respiratory support. This study directly compares three respiratory support methods during advanced bronchoscopy.MethodsThis 3-arm, prospective, block randomized trial included 60 consenting adult patients that were referred for advanced bronchoscopy involving endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS – TBNA) and met inclusion / exclusion criteria. Patients were randomized to undergo a bronchoscopy through a laryngeal mask airway (LMA), or with a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or low flow nasal cannula (NC), with bronchoscopy performed through a bite block. Demographic, procedural and clinical parameters were compared between the 3 groups, including complications, oxygenation, ventilation and need for intervention.ResultsAnalysis according to intention to treat was made for the 20 patients in each arm. There were no significant differences in demographic parameters, pre-morbidities, and procedure type and duration between groups. Hypoxia was significantly more common in the NC group (90%) compared with the LMA (45%) and HFNC (26%) groups (p<0.01). Need for interventions and their number was also lower in the LMA (40%) and HFNC (52.6%) groups compared to the NC group (90%, p< 0.01). A multivariate analysis confirmed both HFNC and LMA as independent predictors of lower rate of recurrent desaturation events and fewer complications in general compared to NC.

“Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in children with acute respiratory failure by bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial”

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare HFNC therapy to noninvasive ventilation (NIV/BiPAP) in children with bronchiolitis who developed respiratory failure. We hypothesized that HFNC therapy would not be inferior to NIV.MethodsThis was a noninferiority open-label randomized single-center clinical trial conducted at a tertiary Brazilian hospital. Children under 2 years of age with no chronic conditions admitted for bronchiolitis that progressed to mild to moderate respiratory distress (Wood-Downes-Férres score < 8) were randomized to either the HFNC group or NIV (BiPAP) group through sealed envelopes. Vital signs, FiO2, Wood-Downes-Férres score and HFNC/NIV parameters were recorded up to 96 h after therapy initiation. Children who developed respiratory failure despite receiving initial therapy were intubated. Crossover was not allowed. The primary outcome analyzed was invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. The secondary outcomes were sedation usage, invasive mechanical ventilation duration, the PICU LOS, the hospital LOS, and mortality rate.ResultsA total of 126 patients were allocated to the NIV group (132 randomized and 6 excluded), and 126 were allocated to the HFNC group (136 randomized and 10 excluded). The median age was 2.5 (1–6) months in the NIV group and 3 (2–7) months in the HFNC group (p = 0,07). RSV was the most common virus isolated in both groups (72% vs. 71.4%, NIV and HFNC, respectively). Thirty-seven patients were intubated in the NIV group and 29 were intubated in the HFNC group (29% vs. 23%, p = 0.25). According to the Farrington-Manning test, with a noninferiority margin of 15%, the difference was 6.3% in favor of HFNC therapy (95% confidence interval: -4.5 to 17.1%, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the PICU LOS or sedation duration. Sedation requirement, hospital LOS and invasive mechanical ventilation duration were lower in the HFNC group.ConclusionHFNC therapy is noninferior to NIV in infants admitted with mild to moderate respiratory distress caused by bronchiolitis that progresses to respiratory failure.Trial registration numbersU1111-1262-1740; RBR-104z966s. Registered 03/01/2023 (retrospectively registered). ReBEC: https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-104z966s.

Sleep apnea-specific hypoxic burden and pulse rate response in children using high flow nasal cannula therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure

BackgroundElevated sleep apnea-specific hypoxic burden (HB) and pulse rate response (ΔHR) are associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in adults. The clinical significance of HB and ΔHR in children with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and their responses to therapy have not yet been investigated. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in reducing HB and ΔHR in children. MethodsThis analysis included 17 children (11 males, mean age: 12.6 ± 3.9 years) with obesity and/or medical complexity and moderate-to-severe OSA. Each participant underwent two additional sleep studies: one for HFNC titration and another for CPAP titration. HB and ΔHR were derived from the oximetry and pulse rate signals from overnight sleep studies, respectively. ResultsBoth HFNC and CPAP demonstrated significant reductions in HB from baseline, with similar magnitudes [HFNC: −129 (standard error, SE 55) %min/h, p = 0.003; CPAP: −138 (SE 53) %min/h, p = 0.005]. However, for ΔHR, a significant reduction from baseline was observed only in the CPAP group [–2.7 (SE 1.1) beats/min, p = 0.049], not the HFNC group [–1.0 (SE 1.4) beats/min, p = 0.67]. ConclusionsHFNC is as effective as CPAP in treating hypoxia in children with OSA, but HFNC might be less effective than CPAP in mitigating cardiovascular stress from autonomic disturbances during obstructive events.

High flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure on incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications after bariatric surgery

ABSTRACT Background High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can be used postoperatively to decrease postoperative pulmonary complications. Aim This study evaluated and compared the effect of HFNC versus CPAP on postoperative pulmonary complications in bariatric surgery. Patients and Methods Sixty adult ASA class II and III patients scheduled for bariatric operations were divided into two equal groups: the HFNC and CPAP groups. Results No significant variations in HR and MABP were observed between groups. Mean SpO2% and PaO2/FiO2 readings were lower on ICU admission than pre-induction (p < 0.001). However, after the intervention, readings significantly increased (p < 0.001). Respiratory rate and PaCO2 levels were higher upon ICU admission than pre-induction in both groups (p < 0.001). After the intervention, they decreased significantly during all assessment times compared to ICU admission time (p < 0.001). Both groups had lower lung ultrasound scores at ICU discharge than on admission (p < 0.001). Still, no significant variations in scores observed between groups upon admission and before discharge. No significant variations were found in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and duration of stay in hospital. Conclusion HFNC and CPAP decrease atelectasis and improve respiratory parameters postoperatively in morbidly obese persons after bariatric operation.

Exploring Heterogeneity in the Cost-Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Acutely Ill Children—Insights From the Step-Up First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children Trial Using a Machine Learning Method

ObjectivesTo investigate heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acutely ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support. MethodsUsing data from the First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children trial, we explore heterogeneity at the patient and subgroup levels using 2 causal forest approaches and a seemingly unrelated regression approach for comparison. First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) involving 24 UK pediatric intensive care units. The Step-up trial focuses on acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years, requiring noninvasive respiratory support. A total of 600 children were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio, with 94 patients excluded because of data unavailability. ResultsThe primary outcome is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gain. INB is derived from total costs and quality-adjusted life years at 6 months. Subgroup analysis showed that some subgroups, such as male children, those aged less than 12 months, and those without severe respiratory distress at randomization, had more favorable INB results. Patient-level analysis revealed heterogeneity in INB estimates, particularly driven by the cost component, with greater uncertainty for those with higher INBs. ConclusionsThe estimated overall INB of HFNC is significantly larger for specific patient subgroups, suggesting that the cost-effectiveness of HFNC can be heterogeneous, which highlights the importance of considering patient characteristics in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HFNC.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure related to suspected or confirmed acute heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

The objective of this review is to compare high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen (High flow oxygen) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of acute respiratory failure secondary to suspected or confirmed acute heart failure (AHF). A comprehensive and relevant literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted using Medical Subject Heading and Free text terms from January 2010 to March 2024. All randomized clinical trials and observational retrospective and prospective studies reporting adult patients with acute respiratory failure due to suspected or confirmed AHF and comparing HFNC to NIV were included. Primary outcome included treatment failure, as a composite outcome including early termination to the allocated treatment, need for in-hospital intubation or mortality, or the definition used in the study for treatment failure if adequate. Secondary outcomes included change in respiratory rate and dyspnea intensity after treatment initiation, patient comfort, invasive mechanical ventilation requirement, and day-30 mortality. Six of the 802 identified studies were selected for final analysis, including 572 patients (221 assigned to high flow and 351 to NIV). Treatment failure rate was 20% and 13% in the high flow oxygen and NIV groups, respectively [estimated odds ratio (OR): 1.7, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.9-3.1] in randomized studies and 34% and 16% in the high flow oxygen and NIV groups, respectively (OR: 3.1, 95% CI: 0.7-13.5), in observational studies. Tracheal intubation requirement was 7% and 5% of patients in the HFNC and NIV groups, respectively (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.5-3.5) in randomized studies, and 20% and 9% in the high flow oxygen and NIV group, respectively (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 0.5-9.4) in observational studies. Mortality was 13% and 8% in the high flow oxygen and the NIV groups, respectively (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 0.8-1.1) in randomized studies and 14% and 9% in the high flow oxygen and the NIV groups, respectively (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.5-3.7) in observational studies. Compared with NIV, high flow oxygen was not associated with a higher risk of treatment failure during initial management of patients with acute respiratory failure related to suspected or confirmed AHF.

High Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Incidence of Post-Extubation Airway Obstruction in PICU: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial (HiFloCOT-PICU Trial).

To study the impact of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs. conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (by simple nasal cannula) as respiratory support after extubation on the rates of post-extubation airway obstruction (PEAO) among mechanically ventilated critically ill children. This open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a tertiary care teaching hospital in North India over a period of 7 mo (11 August 2021 to 10 March 2022). Children aged 3 mo to 12 y who required invasive mechanical ventilation for > 72h and had passed spontaneous breathing trial (ready for extubation) were enrolled and randomized by computer generated block randomization to receive HFNC or COT after extubation. Primary outcome was rate of PEAO (assessed by modified Westley croup score, mWCS) within 48h of extubation; and secondary outcomes were rate and number of adrenaline nebulization, treatment failure (requiring escalation of respiratory support), extubation failure, adverse events, and length of PICU stay in two groups. During the study period, 116 children were enrolled (58 each in HFNC and COT groups). There was no difference in rate of PEAO (55% vs. 51.7%, respectively), need of adrenaline nebulization, extubation failure, adverse events, and duration of PICU stay in two groups. However, the HFNC group had significantly lower rates of treatment failure (27.6% vs. 48.3%, p = 0.02). The rate of PEAO was similar in HFNC and COT groups. However, HFNC group had significantly lower rate of treatment failure requiring escalation of respiratory support.

The Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in the Emergency Department and a Comparison of Its Efficacy With Noninvasive Ventilation.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation has emerged as aconvenient and handy oxygenation mode over the past few years, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFNC is designed to provide humidified oxygen at high flow rates to subjects in a much more patient-compliant method. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been a powerful tool in treating dyspneic patients of different etiologies, yielding positive outcomes over many decades. HFNC has the potential to serve as an alternative to NIV for acutely breathless patients, offering better patient compliance. A prospective observational study was conducted with a population size of 100 patients. The patients were randomly assigned to HFNC and NIV groups and further compared based on the clinical criteria, arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratios, and modified Borg score. Simple proportions, mean, standard deviation, and chi-square tests were used. The chi-square test was applied to determine the association between the two attributes. Both HFNC and NIV subset populations have shown substantial improvement in their clinical criteria in terms of respiratory rate, heart rate, oxygen saturation, PaO2/FiO2 ratios, and modified Borg score over two and six hours with statistically significant improvement in oxygen saturations among HFNC subset in comparison to NIV subset(at two hours, p = 0.004; at six hours, p = 0.022). Secondary outcomes like the need for intubation (14% in HFNC, 22% in NIV) and mortality (4% in HFNC, 6% in NIV group) were noted, which were statistically insignificant in comparing their efficacy. The study concluded that HFNC resulted in better clinical parameters than NIV, but the difference was statistically insignificant except for oxygen saturation. Similarly, HFNC resulted in a decreased need for intubation and less mortality compared to NIV.

High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BackgroundAlthough cumulative studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, randomized trials to compare HFNC with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as initial treatment in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure are limited. The aim of this randomized, open label, non-inferiority trial was to compare treatment failure rates between HFNC and NIV in such patients.MethodsPatients diagnosed with AECOPD with a baseline arterial blood gas pH between 7.25 and 7.35 and PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg admitted to two intensive care units (ICUs) at a large tertiary academic teaching hospital between March 2018 and December 2022 were randomly assigned to HFNC or NIV. The primary endpoint was the rate of treatment failure, defined as endotracheal intubation or a switch to the other study treatment modality. Secondary endpoints were rates of intubation or treatment change, blood gas values, vital signs at one, 12, and 48 h, 28-day mortality, as well as ICU and hospital lengths of stay.Results225 total patients (113 in the HFNC group and 112 in the NIV group) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The failure rate of the HFNC group was 25.7%, while the NIV group was 14.3%. The failure rate risk difference between the two groups was 11.38% (95% CI 0.25–21.20, P = 0.033), which was higher than the non-inferiority cut-off of 9%. In the per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in 28 of 110 patients (25.5%) in the HFNC group and 15 of 109 patients (13.8%) in the NIV group (risk difference, 11.69%; 95% CI 0.48–22.60). The intubation rate in the HFNC group was higher than in the NIV group (14.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.026). The treatment switch rate, ICU and hospital length of stay or 28-day mortality in the HFNC group were not statistically different from the NIV group (all P > 0.05).ConclusionHFNC was not shown to be non-inferior to NIV and resulted in a higher incidence of treatment failure than NIV when used as the initial respiratory support for AECOPD patients with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure.Trial registration: chictr.org (ChiCTR1800014553). Registered 21 January 2018, http://www.chictr.org.cn

The effectiveness of transnasal high flow nasal cannula in bronchoscopy under sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical application effects of transnasal high flow nasal cannula compared to other conventional modalities for oxygen therapy devices in patients undergoing bronchoscopy. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in multiple English databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to collect relevant studies on the application of high flow nasal cannula in patients undergoing bronchoscopy, and conducted a meta-analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, following the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 12 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included, involving 1,631 patients (HFNC group: n = 811, other oxygen therapy group: n = 820). The meta-analysis results demonstrated that HFNC significantly reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and improved the minimum oxygen saturation compared to conventional oxygen therapy (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41, p < 0.00001; MD = 6.09, 95% CI: 3.73-8.45, p < 0.00001). Furthermore, HFNC showed statistically significant differences when compared to non-invasive ventilation in terms of hypoxemia incidence (RR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.13-10.97, p = 0.03) and minimum oxygen saturation (MD = -1.97, 95% CI: -2.97--0.98, p < 0.0001). In addition, HFNC resulted in significantly shorter surgical time and higher PaO2 at the end of the procedure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (MD = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.66-2.40, p = 0.0006; MD = 15.52, 95% CI: 10.12-20.92, p < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in PaCO2, EtCO2, and MAP at the end of the procedure (MD = 1.23, 95% CI: -0.74-3.20, p = 0.22; MD = -0.35, 95% CI: -3.77-3.06, p = 0.84; MD = -0.54, 95% CI: -2.44-1.36, p = 0.58). When HFNC or NIV is utilized during the examination and treatment of bronchoscopy patients, both oxygenation modalities enhance oxygenation function and reduce the incidence of hypoxemia compared to conventional oxygen therapy. HFNC can be regarded as a viable alternative to NIV for specific high-risk patients undergoing bronchoscopy. It decreases the duration of bronchoscopy and improves the PaO2 levels at the end of the procedure, but does not significantly impact the PaCO2, EtCO2, and mean arterial pressure. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier 1414374462@qq.com.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for mild-moderate acute respiratory failure in patients with blunt chest trauma: An exploratory descriptive study

ObjectiveThe use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining popularity for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of HFNC for hypoxemic ARF in patients with blunt chest trauma (BCT). MethodsThis retrospective analysis focused on BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF who were treated with either HFNC or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency medicine department from January 2021 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either invasive ventilation, or a switch to the other study treatment (NIV for patients in the NFNC group, and vice-versa). ResultsA total of 157 patients with BCT (72 in the HFNC group and 85 in the NIV group) were included in this study. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 11.1% and 16.5% in the NIV group - risk difference of 5.36% (95% CI, −5.94–16.10%; P = 0.366). The most common cause of failure in the HFNC group was aggravation of respiratory distress. While in the NIV group, the most common reason for failure was treatment intolerance. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (1.4% vs 9.4%, 95% CI 0.40–16.18; P = 0.039). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that chronic respiratory disease, abbreviated injury scale score (chest) (≥3), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (≥15), partial arterial oxygen tension /fraction of inspired oxygen (≤200) at 1 h of treatment and respiratory rate (≥32 /min) at 1 h of treatment were risk factors associated with HFNC failure. ConclusionIn BCT patients with mild-moderate hypoxemic ARF, the usage of HFNC did not lead to higher rate of treatment failure when compared to NIV. HFNC was found to offer better comfort and tolerance than NIV, suggesting it may be a promising new respiratory support therapy for BCT patients with mild-moderate ARF.

Exploring Heterogeneity in Cost-Effectiveness Using Machine Learning Methods: A Case Study Using the FIRST-ABC Trial.

The aim of this study was to explore heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in children following extubation. Using data from the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) trial, we explore heterogeneity at the individual and subgroup levels using a causal forest approach, alongside a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) approach for comparison. FIRST-ABC is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) including children in UK paediatric intensive care units, which compared HFNC with CPAP as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support. In the step-down FIRST-ABC, 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. In this analysis, 118 patients were excluded because they did not consent to accessing their medical records, did not consent to follow-up questionnaire or did not receive respiratory support. The primary outcome of this study is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain. INB is calculated based on total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months. The findings suggest modest heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP at the subgroup level, while greater heterogeneity is detected at the individual level. The estimated overall INB of HFNC is smaller than the INB for patients with better baseline status suggesting that HFNC can be more cost-effective among less severely ill patients.

A meta-analysis of the effects of transnasal high-flow oxygen therapy in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical effects of using transnasal high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2004 to April 2024 to collect relevant studies on the application of HFNC in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Multiple Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library, were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. RevMan 5.4 software was utilized for conducting the network meta-analysis. A total of 12 RCTs involving 3,726 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that HFNC reduced the incidence of hypoxemia and improved the minimum oxygen saturation (SpO2) compared with COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.53], [mean difference (MD) = 4.07, 95% CI: 3.14-5.01], and the difference was statistically significant. However, the baseline SpO2 levels and incidence of hypercapnia were not statistically significantly different between the HFNC and COT groups [MD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.49-0.07]; [OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.95-2.15]. In terms of procedure time, the difference between HFNC and COT was not statistically significant, and subgroup analyses were performed for the different types of studies, with standard deviation in the gastroscopy group (MD = 0.09, 95% CI: -0.07-0.24) and the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography group (MD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.50-1.23). The results demonstrated a significant reduction in the adoption of airway interventions in the HFNC group compared to the COT group (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05-0.53), with a statistically significant difference; this result was consistent with those of the included studies. The application of HFNC improves the incidence of hypoxemia, enhances oxygenation, and reduces airway interventions during gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, HFNC does not significantly affect baseline SpO2, hypercapnia, or procedure time. The limitations of this study must be acknowledged, and further high-quality studies should be conducted to validate these findings.

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy during cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia in pregnant women with heart disease: a randomized controlled trial

To evaluate the beneficial effects of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy during cesarean section in pregnant women with heart disease. We conducted a single-center, single-blinded randomized trial of HFNC oxygen therapy in pregnant women with heart disease undergoing cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia.The participants were randomly assigned to receive either HFNC oxygen therapy with inspiratory flow of 30 L/min with 40% FIO2(n=27) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) with oxygen flow rate of 5 L/min via a nasal cannula (n=31).The primary outcome was maternal desaturation (SpO2 < 94% lasting more than 3 min or PaO2/FIO2≤300 mmHg). Maternal desaturation was observed in 7.4%(2/27) of the women in HFNC group and in 32.3%(10/31) in the COT group.None of the cases required tracheal intubation during the perioperative period.The HFNC group had a significantly higher incidence of postoperative leukocytosis (P < 0.05) but without pyrexia or other inflammation-related symptoms.There were no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary maternal outcomes (need for respiratory support, maternal ICU admission, postoperative respiratory complications, and cardiovascular complications) or neonatal outcomes (P>0.05). In pregnant women with heart disease, HFNC therapy can significantly reduce the rate of maternal desaturation during the perioperative period of cesarean section without adverse effects on short-term maternal or fetal outcomes.

The comparison of preoxygenation methods before endotracheal intubation: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Preoxygenation before endotracheal intubation (ETI) maintains asphyxiated oxygenation and reduces the risk of hypoxia-induced adverse events. Previous studies have compared various preoxygenation methods. However, network meta-analyses (NMAs) of the combined comparison of preoxygenation methods is still lacking. We searched for studies published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Review Manager version 5.3 was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was low oxygen saturation (SpO2) during ETI. The secondary outcomes included SpO2 <80%, SpO2 <90%, and apnea time during ETI. NMA was performed using R 4.1.2 software gemtc packages in RStudio. A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Regarding the lowest SpO2, the noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) group performed better than the other groups. For SpO2 <80%, the NIV group (0.8603467) performed better than the HFNC (0.1373533) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT, 0.0023) groups, according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve results. For SpO2 <90%, the NIV group (0.60932667) performed better than the HFNC (0.37888667) and COT (0.01178667) groups. With regard to apnea time, the HFNC group was superior to the COT group (mean difference: -50.05; 95% confidence interval: -90.01, -10.09; P = 0.01). Network analysis revealed that NIV for preoxygenation achieved higher SpO2 levels than HFNC and COT and offered a more significant advantage in maintaining patient oxygenation during ETI. Patients experienced a longer apnea time after HFNC preoxygenation. The combination of NIV with HFNC proved to be significantly superior to other methods. Given the scarcity of such studies, further research is needed to evaluate its effectiveness. identifier CRD42022346013.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is equally effective to noninvasive ventilation for mild-moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with acute pancreatitis: A single-center, retrospective cohort study.

The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is gaining popularity for the treatment of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. However, limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of HFNC for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). This retrospective analysis focused on AP patients with mild-moderate ARDS, who were treated with either HFNC or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in the emergency medicine department, from January 2020 to December 2022. The primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as either invasive ventilation or a switch to any other study treatment (NIV for patients in the NFNC group and vice versa). A total of 146 patients with AP (68 in the HFNC group and 78 in the NIV group) were included in this study. The treatment failure rate in the HFNC group was 17.6% and 19.2% in the NIV group - a risk difference of -1.6% (95% CI, -11.3 to 14.0%; P = 0.806). The most common causes of failure in the HFNC group were aggravation of respiratory distress and hypoxemia. However, in the NIV group, the most common reasons for failure were treatment intolerance and exacerbation of respiratory distress. Treatment intolerance in the HFNC group was significantly lower than that in the NIV group (16.7% vs 60.0%, 95% CI -66.8 to -6.2; P = 0.023). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (≥28), acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score (≥15), partial arterial oxygen tension/fraction of inspired oxygen (≤200), and respiratory rate (≥32/min) at 1 hour were independent predictors of HFNC failure. In AP patients with mild-moderate ARDS, the usage of HFNC did not lead to a higher rate of treatment failure when compared to NIV. HFNC is an ideal choice of respiratory support for patients with NIV intolerance, but clinical application should pay attention to the influencing factors of its treatment failure.

Comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in treating COVID-19 patients referred to the emergency department: A randomized, single-blind clinical trial

Objective: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been recently implicated in the treatment of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). This study investigated the effect of this treatment on COVID-19 patients. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial performed between June and November 2021 (Delta variant of the coronavirus) at Al-Zahra Hospital in Iran, on patients with COVID-19 referred to the emergency department (ED). COVID-19 patients who had peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)≤90% despite receiving nasal oxygen (up to 6 L/min) were included in the study and randomly assigned to receive either HFNC or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) treatment. The patients were compared regarding vital signs, SpO2, and the need for endotracheal intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The calculated sample size was 35 patients in each group. The variables were compared using the chi-square, student’s t-test, or Mann-Whitney U tests. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 25. Results: Eighty-seven patients with a mean age of 65.3±14.8 (62.1% male) were included. The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, time interval from onset to diagnosis, and underlying diseases (hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, etc.) (P&lt;0.05). No statistically significant difference was reported between SpO2 and PaO2/FiO2 vital signs at the beginning of treatment between the two groups. One hour after treatment, respiratory rate, SpO2, and PaO2/ FiO2 were better in the HFNC group compared to the COT group (P&lt;0.05). Also, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding in-hospital mortality or the need for endotracheal intubation or ICU admission. Conclusion: Early use of HFNC oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 can improve SpO2, respiratory rate, and PaO2/FiO2 levels, making it highly valuable from a clinical point of view.

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen reduced hypoxemia in patients undergoing gastroscopy under general anesthesia at ultra-high altitude: a randomized controlled trial.

Hypoxemia can occur in people at ultra-high altitude (above 3500m) even at rest, and patients undergoing gastroscopy under general anesthesia have higher risk of hypoxemia. Supplementary oxygen via standard nasal cannula (SNC) is the standard of care for most patients who undergo gastroscopy under general anesthesia, which provides oxygen flow up to 15L/min. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) could deliver oxygen at a rate up to 60L/min, which is recommended by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines. We speculated that the benefit with HFNC is more prominent in high-altitude areas, and aimed to compare the incidence of hypoxemia during gastroscopy under general anesthesia at ultra-high altitude with oxygen supply via either HFNC or SNC. The trial was registered at at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100045513; date of registration on 18/04/2021). Adult patients undergoing gastroscopy with anesthesia (estimated duration of anesthesia at ≥ 15min) were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive HFNC oxygen or SNC oxygen. The primary outcome was hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for any duration). Secondary outcomes included severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75% for any duration or SpO2 < 90% but ≥ 75% for ≥ 60s) and hypotension, as defined by reduction of mean arterial blood pressure by ≥ 25% from the baseline. A total of 262 patients were enrolled: 129 in the HFNC group and 133 in the SNC group. All patients received the designated intervention. Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 test were employed in the study. The rate of hypoxemia was 9.3% (12/129) in the HFNC group versus 36.8% (49/133) in the SNC group [risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.25(0.14-0.45); P < 0.001). The HFNC group also had lower rate of severe hypoxemia [0.0% (0/129) versus 11.3% (15/133); risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.03(0.00-0.55); P < 0.001, respectively]. The rate of hypotension did not differ between the 2 groups [22.5% (29/129) in HFNC group versus 21.1% (28/133) in SNC group; risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.07(0.67-1.69) ; P = 0.779]. HFNC oxygen reduced the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia in adult patients undergoing gastroscopy at ultra-high altitude.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the NICU of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd

Background: Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a common and urgent condition in newborns, caused by a lack of surfactant production and secretion. This study aimed to compare two non-invasive methods, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and highflow nasal cannula (HFNC), for managing RDS. Methods: The study was conducted in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital between 2020 and 2021 and included 49 premature neonates (with gestation ≤34 weeks and birth weight ≤2,000 g) diagnosed with RDS. The neonates were randomly assigned to either the HFNC group (n = 24) or the nCPAP group (n = 25). Results: No significant differences in demographic features were observed between the two groups. The HFNC group had lower rates of intubation, shorter hospitalization duration, and less need for full nutritional support and oxygen therapy compared to the nCPAP group, but these differences were not statistically significant. Additionally, there were no significant differences in complications such as traumatic nasal injury, apnea, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, and mortality between the two groups. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that both HFNC and nCPAP are equally effective in treating premature neonates with RDS, with no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Given the cost-effectiveness of HFNC, medical staff expertise, and equipment accessibility, this approach could be considered a viable alternative to nCPAP.