High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately Postextubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • David Granton
  • , Dipayan Chaudhuri
  • , Dominic Wang
  • , Sharon Einav
  • , Yigal Helviz
  • , Tommaso Mauri
  • , Jordi Mancebo
  • , Jean Pierre Frat
  • , Sameer Jog
  • , Gonzalo Hernandez
  • , Salvatore M. Maggiore
  • , Carol L. Hodgson
  • , Samir Jaber
  • , Laurent Brochard
  • , Vatsal Trivedi
  • , Jean Damien Ricard
  • , Ewan C. Goligher
  • , Karen E.A. Burns
  • , Bram Rochwerg*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Reintubation after failed extubation is associated with increased mortality and longer hospital length of stay. Noninvasive oxygenation modalities may prevent reintubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula after extubation in critically ill adults. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Study Selection: We included randomized controlled trials comparing high-flow nasal cannula to other noninvasive methods of oxygen delivery after extubation in critically ill adults. Data Extraction: We included the following outcomes: Reintubation, postextubation respiratory failure, mortality, use of noninvasive ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, complications, and comfort. Data Synthesis: We included eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1,594 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula decreased reintubation (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70; moderate certainty) and postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91; very low certainty), but had no effect on mortality (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.52; moderate certainty), or ICU length of stay (mean difference, 0.05 d fewer; 95% CI, 0.83 d fewer to 0.73 d more; high certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may decrease use of noninvasive ventilation (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34-1.22; moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0.98 d fewer; 95% CI, 2.16 d fewer to 0.21 d more; moderate certainty) compared with conventional oxygen therapy, however, certainty was limited by imprecision. Compared with noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula had no effect on reintubation (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.57; low certainty), mortality (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.82-1.53; moderate certainty), or postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; very low certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may reduce ICU length of stay (moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (moderate certainty) compared with noninvasive ventilation. Conclusions: High-flow nasal cannula reduces reintubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but not compared with noninvasive ventilation after extubation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E1129-E1136
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume48
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • high-flow nasal cannula
  • meta-analysis
  • noninvasive ventilation
  • oxygen inhalational therapy
  • postextubation
  • reintubation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately Postextubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this