COVID-19 患者使用高流量鼻插管和传统氧疗的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17534666231225323
Jian-Chao Wang, Yun Peng, Bing Dai, Hai-Jia Hou, Hong-Wen Zhao, Wei Wang, Wei Tan
{"title":"COVID-19 患者使用高流量鼻插管和传统氧疗的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jian-Chao Wang, Yun Peng, Bing Dai, Hai-Jia Hou, Hong-Wen Zhao, Wei Wang, Wei Tan","doi":"10.1177/17534666231225323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub>), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, <i>p</i> = 0.0009, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, <i>p</i> = 0.0007, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, <i>p</i> = 0.005, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).</p>","PeriodicalId":22884,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10798115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jian-Chao Wang, Yun Peng, Bing Dai, Hai-Jia Hou, Hong-Wen Zhao, Wei Wang, Wei Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17534666231225323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub>), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, <i>p</i> = 0.0009, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, <i>p</i> = 0.0007, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, <i>p</i> = 0.005, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10798115/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666231225323\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666231225323","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高流量鼻插管(HFNC)和传统氧疗(COT)是治疗2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者急性低氧血症呼吸衰竭(AHRF)的重要呼吸支持策略。然而,与 COT 相比,HFNC 的插管风险结果却相互矛盾:我们系统地综合了 COVID-19 冠状病毒病 AHRF 患者使用 HFNC 相对于 COT 的结果,并在相关亚人群中对这些结果进行了评估:本研究根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南进行设计:我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Scopus、ClinicalTrials.gov、medRxiv、BioRxiv和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册,以寻找在COVID-19相关AHRF患者中比较HFNC与COT疗效的随机对照试验和观察性研究。主要结果是插管率和死亡率。次要结果是动脉血氧分压与部分吸入氧(PaO2/FiO2)的比率、呼吸频率、住院时间、重症监护室(ICU)住院时间和无创机械通气天数:结果:共纳入了 20 项研究,5732 名患者。我们发现,与 COT 相比,HFNC 患者需要插管的风险更低[几率比 (OR) = 0.61,95% 置信区间 (CI):0.46-0.82,P = 0.0009,I2 = 75%]。同样,我们发现在基线 PaO2/FiO2 p = 0.0007,I2 = 45% 的患者亚组中,与 COT 相比,HFNC 与较低的插管率风险相关(OR = 0.57,95% CI:0.38-0.85,p = 0.005,I2 = 80%)。与 COT 相比,HFNC 可改善 PaO2/FiO2 和呼吸频率。与 COT 相比,使用 HFNC 并未降低死亡率、无创机械通气天数、住院时间或重症监护室住院时间:结论:与 COT 相比,HFNC 可减少 COVID-19 相关 AHRF 患者的气管插管需求,尤其是基线 PaO2/FiO2 试验注册的患者:本系统综述和荟萃分析方案已在 PROSPERO 进行了前瞻性注册(编号:CRD42022339072)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) are important respiratory support strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the results are conflicting for the risk of intubation with HFNC as compared to COT.

Objectives: We systematically synthesized the outcomes of HFNC relative to COT in COVID-19 patients with AHRF and evaluated these outcomes in relevant subpopulations.

Design: This study was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Data sources and methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the efficacy of HFNC with COT in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), respiratory rate, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and days free from invasive mechanical ventilation.

Results: In total, 20 studies with 5732 patients were included. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation in HFNC compared to COT [odds ratio (OR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.82, p = 0.0009, I2 = 75%]. Similarly, we found HFNC was associated with lower risk of intubation rate compared to COT in the subgroup of patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55-0.86, p = 0.0007, I2 = 45%), and who were in ICU settings at enrollment (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.85, p = 0.005, I2 = 80%). HFNC was associated with an improvement of PaO2/FiO2 and respiratory rate compared to COT. The use of HFNC compared to COT did not reduce the mortality rate, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or ICU length of stay.

Conclusion: Compared to COT, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, particularly among patients with baseline PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg and those in ICU settings.

Trial registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42022339072).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of respiratory disease.
期刊最新文献
Prone positioning during CPAP therapy in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a concise clinical review. Liver injury due to endothelin receptor antagonists: a real-world study based on post-marketing drug monitoring data. Referral rates and barriers to lung transplantation based on pulmonary function criteria in interstitial lung diseases: a retrospective cohort study. A comparison between a gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire-based algorithm and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux-induced chronic cough. Post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index: a new parameter for the identification of non-acid gastroesophageal reflux-related chronic cough.
×
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