High-flow nasal oxygen therapy in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL European Journal of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2025.02.015
Lili Guan, Jianyi Niu, Qiaoyun Huang, Shanshan Zha, Zhenfeng He, Jieying Hu, Shengchuan Feng, Luqian Zhou, Rongchang Chen
{"title":"High-flow nasal oxygen therapy in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Lili Guan, Jianyi Niu, Qiaoyun Huang, Shanshan Zha, Zhenfeng He, Jieying Hu, Shengchuan Feng, Luqian Zhou, Rongchang Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.ejim.2025.02.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended as the first-line respiratory support method for patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure (HRF). However, the need for well-trained operators and the occurrence of treatment discomfort may limit its efficacy. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) is a convenient respiratory support with user-friendly operation, high comfort, and good compliance. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the therapeutic effects of HFNO and other noninvasive respiratory support methods [NIV or conventional oxygen therapy (COT)] in patients with acute HRF (AHRF) or chronic HRF (CHRF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2024 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the impact of HFNO and NIV/COT in adults with HRF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies (1630 patients) were included. Compared with NIV, HFNO did not improve the primary outcome of PaCO<sub>2</sub> in patients with AHRF or CHRF [AHRF: MD = -0.81, 95 % CI = -3.40 to 1.77; CHRF: MD = 1.82, 95 % CI = 0.44 to 3.20]. However, HFNO showed advantages over COT (AHRF: MD = -2.03, 95 % CI = -3.48 to -0.59; CHRF: MD = -2.64, 95 % CI = -4.24 to -1.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence of its clinical efficacy in hypercapnic patients remains inconclusive. Further studies are needed to generate more evidence for the application of HFNO in patients with HRF and to determine the subset of patients for whom may be preferable.</p>","PeriodicalId":50485,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2025.02.015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended as the first-line respiratory support method for patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure (HRF). However, the need for well-trained operators and the occurrence of treatment discomfort may limit its efficacy. High-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) is a convenient respiratory support with user-friendly operation, high comfort, and good compliance. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the therapeutic effects of HFNO and other noninvasive respiratory support methods [NIV or conventional oxygen therapy (COT)] in patients with acute HRF (AHRF) or chronic HRF (CHRF).

Methods: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2024 to identify randomized clinical trials comparing the impact of HFNO and NIV/COT in adults with HRF.

Results: Sixteen studies (1630 patients) were included. Compared with NIV, HFNO did not improve the primary outcome of PaCO2 in patients with AHRF or CHRF [AHRF: MD = -0.81, 95 % CI = -3.40 to 1.77; CHRF: MD = 1.82, 95 % CI = 0.44 to 3.20]. However, HFNO showed advantages over COT (AHRF: MD = -2.03, 95 % CI = -3.48 to -0.59; CHRF: MD = -2.64, 95 % CI = -4.24 to -1.03).

Conclusions: The evidence of its clinical efficacy in hypercapnic patients remains inconclusive. Further studies are needed to generate more evidence for the application of HFNO in patients with HRF and to determine the subset of patients for whom may be preferable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Internal Medicine
European Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
364
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Internal Medicine serves as the official journal of the European Federation of Internal Medicine and is the primary scientific reference for European academic and non-academic internists. It is dedicated to advancing science and practice in internal medicine across Europe. The journal publishes original articles, editorials, reviews, internal medicine flashcards, and other relevant information in the field. Both translational medicine and clinical studies are emphasized. EJIM aspires to be a leading platform for excellent clinical studies, with a focus on enhancing the quality of healthcare in European hospitals.
期刊最新文献
High-flow nasal oxygen therapy in patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reevaluating hypoxia and cancer as determinants of prognosis in COPD and Takotsubo syndrome. Author's reply. Rising ischemic stroke-related mortality among young adults in the United States: Insights from CDC WONDER. Bedside CEUS: A feasible option to consider. Refining risk assessment for intra-abdominal infections in immunocompromised intensive care unit patients. Author's reply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1