Ou Xiaofeng, Hua Yusi, Liu Jin, Gong Cansheng, Zhao Wenling
Department of Anesthesiology and Translational Neuroscience Center (Ou, Liu, Gong, Zhao), Laboratory of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan; Department of Anesthesiology (Hua), Subei People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Department of Anesthesiology and Translational Neuroscience Center (Ou, Liu, Gong, Zhao), Laboratory of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan; Department of Anesthesiology (Hua), Subei People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China
CMAJ. 2017 Feb 21;189(7):E260-E267. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160570.
Conflicting recommendations exist on whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy should be administered to adult patients in critical care with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate its effect on intubation rates.
We searched electronic databases from inception to April 2016. We included RCTs that compared HFNC oxygen therapy with usual care (conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation) in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Because of the different methodologies and variation in clinical outcomes, we conducted 2 subgroup analyses according to oxygen therapy used and disease severity. We pooled data using random-effects models. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation.
We included 6 RCTs ( = 1892). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, HFNC oxygen therapy was associated with a lower intubation rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38 to 0.94; = 49%). We found no significant difference in the rate between HFNC oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; = 2%). In the subgroup analysis by disease severity, no significant differences were found in the intubation rate between HFNC oxygen therapy and either conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation (interaction = 0.3 and 0.4, respectively).
The intubation rate with HFNC oxygen therapy was lower than the rate with conventional oxygen therapy and similar to the rate with noninvasive ventilation among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
对于在重症监护中患有急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的成年患者是否应给予高流量鼻导管(HFNC)氧疗,存在相互矛盾的建议。我们进行了一项随机对照试验(RCT)的荟萃分析,以评估其对插管率的影响。
我们检索了从数据库建立至2016年4月的电子数据库。我们纳入了比较HFNC氧疗与常规治疗(传统氧疗或无创通气)用于患有急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的成年患者的RCT。由于方法不同和临床结局存在差异,我们根据所使用的氧疗方法和疾病严重程度进行了两项亚组分析。我们使用随机效应模型汇总数据。主要结局是需要气管插管的患者比例。
我们纳入了6项RCT(n = 1892)。与传统氧疗相比,HFNC氧疗与较低的插管率相关(风险比[RR] 0.60,95%置信区间[CI] 0.38至0.94;P = 49%)。我们发现HFNC氧疗与无创通气之间的插管率无显著差异(RR 0.86,95% CI 0.68至1.09;P = 2%)。在按疾病严重程度进行的亚组分析中,HFNC氧疗与传统氧疗或无创通气之间的插管率均未发现显著差异(交互作用P分别为0.3和0.4)。
在患有急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的患者中,HFNC氧疗的插管率低于传统氧疗,且与无创通气的插管率相似。需要更大规模、高质量的RCT来证实这些发现。