High-flow nasal oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in chronic interstitial lung disease patients with acute respiratory failure

Shebl, Eman; Embarak, Sameh

doi:10.4103/ejcdt.ejcdt_33_18

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intubation AHRF (immunocompromised patients [100%]) HFNC: 64 [55–70] a COT: 63 [56–71] a HFNC: 136 [96–187] a COT: 128 [92–164] a Doshi 2018 [ 57 ] 228 NPPV HFNC 1. Intubation AHRF (COPD exacerbation [26.0%]) NPPV: 63 (15) HFNC: 63 (14) NA Eman 2018 [ 48 ] 70 NPPV HFNC 1. Mortality (in-hospital) 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Noninvasive respiratory support devices may reduce the tracheal intubation rate compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). To date, few studies have compared high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use with noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of three respiratory support devices in patients with acute respiratory failure. Methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥ 16 years with acute hypoxic respiratory failure and randomized-controlled trials that compared two different oxygenation devices (COT, NPPV, or HFNC) before tracheal intubation were included. A frequentist-based approach with a multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The network meta-analysis was performed using the GRADE Working Group approach. The outcomes were short-term mortality and intubation rate. Results Among 5507 records, 27 studies (4618 patients) were included. The main cause of acute hypoxic respiratory failure was pneumonia. Compared with COT, NPPV and HFNC use tended to reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.88 and 0.93, respectively; 95% confidence intervals, 0.76–1.01 and 0.80–1.08, respectively; both low certainty) and lower the risk of endotracheal intubation (0.81 and 0.78; 0.72–0.91 and 0.68–0.89, respectively; both low certainty); however, short-term mortality or intubation rates did not differ (0.94 and 1.04, respectively; 0.78–1.15 and 0.88–1.22, respectively; both low certainty) between NPPV and HFNC use. Conclusion NPPV and HFNC use are associated with a decreased risk of endotracheal intubation; however, there are no significant differences in short-term mortality. Trial registration PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020139105, 01/21/2020)

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We identified 5 parallel-group RCTs (33,(64)(65)(66)(67) and 2 crossover RCTs (68,69) comparing HFNC to NIV in AHRF. Three RCTs reported short-term mortality (hospital, ICU, or 28day), finding that HFNC may reduce mortality (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.14; RD -4.5%, 95%CI -9.4 to 2.7; very low certainty); however, this is limited by imprecise and inconsistent effects between the studies.…”

Section: Evidence Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 RCTs evaluated effect of HFNC on intubation, demonstrating that HFNC may reduce intubation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; RD -4.1%, -10.1 to 4.1; low certainty), but this result is limited by indirectness and imprecision. (33,(64)(65)(66)(67) HFNC may have a small impact on length of stay, potentially decreasing ICU stay by 0.55 days (95% CI -2.0 to 0.89, low certainty) and increasing overall hospital stay by 0.8 days (95% CI -0.59 to 2.19, very low certainty). Pooled analysis of 4 RCTs shows that HFNC may improve patient comfort (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.09, moderate certainty) but results in greater degree of perceived dyspnea than NIV (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.40, very low certainty).…”

Section: Evidence Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used non-invasive form of respiratory support in acute settings, however evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF).Materials and methodologyThe European Respiratory Society Task Force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The Task Force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methods to summarise evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF.ResultsThe Task Force developed 8 conditional recommendations, suggesting using: 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxemic ARF, 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxemic ARF, 3)HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV, 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications, 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications, 6) HFNC over COT in non-surgical patients at low risk of extubation failure, 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV, 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic ARF.ConclusionsHFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of non-invasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

show abstract

“…396,397,[401][402][403][404][405][406][407][408][409][410][411][412] When compared to NHFT, NIV yielded an RD of 8 fewer per 1,000 (95%CI: 35 fewer to 25 more) (3 RCTs, n = 338). 396,397,413 The estimate of network effects for tracheal intubation were as follows: when compared to COT, NHFT yielded an RD of 65 fewer per 1,000 (95%CI: 95 fewer to 28 fewer) (6 RCTs, n = 1,563) [396][397][398][399][400]404 and NIV yielded an RD of 60 fewer per 1,000 (95% CI: 92 fewer to 29 fewer) (17 RCTs, n = 2,506. 396,397,[401][402][403][405][406][407][408][409][410][411][414][415][416][417][418] When compared to NHFT, NIV yielded an RD of 5 more per 1,000 (95%CI: 32 fewer to 46 more) (5 RCTs, n = 1,584).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020)

Egi

Ogura

Yatabe

et al. 2021

Acute Medicine & Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

show abstract

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy versus noninvasive ventilation in chronic interstitial lung disease patients with acute respiratory failure

Cited by 15 publications

References 1 publication

Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Association of noninvasive respiratory support with mortality and intubation rates in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About