2018Revista Brasileira de Terapia IntensivaOpen access

The effects of high-flow nasal cannula on intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Rafael Ladeira Rosa Bocchile, Denise Carnieli Cazati, Karina Tavares Timenetsky, Ary Serpa Neto

Open full text 18 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in the prevention of intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients compared to conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation. METHODS: This systematic review was performed through an electronic database search of articles published from 1966 to April 2018. The primary outcome was the need for intubation or re-intubation. The secondary outcomes were therapy escalation, mortality at the longest follow-up, hospital mortality and the need for noninvasive ventilation. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 3,978 patients were included. There was no reduction in the need for intubation or re-intubation with high-flow nasal cannula (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52 - 1.01; p = 0.056). There was no difference in the need for therapy escalation (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.08, p = 0.144), mortality at the longest follow-up (OR 0.94; 95%CI 0.70 - 1.25; p = 0.667), hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.56 - 1.26; p = 0.391) or noninvasive ventilation (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39 - 1.05, p = 0.075). In the trial sequential analysis, the number of events included was lower than the optimal information size with a global type I error > 0.05. CONCLUSION: In the present study and setting, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a reduction of the need for intubation or re-intubation in critically ill patients.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in the prevention of intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients compared to conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation. METHODS: This systematic review was performed through an electronic database search of articles published from 1966 to April 2018. The primary outcome was the need for intubation or re-intubation. The secondary outcomes were therapy escalation, mortality at the longest follow-up, hospital mortality and the need for noninvasive ventilation. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 3,978 patients were included. There was no reduction in the need for intubation or re-intubation with high-flow nasal cannula (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52 - 1.01; p = 0.056). There was no difference in the need for therapy escalation (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.08, p = 0.144), mortality at the longest follow-up (OR 0.94; 95%CI 0.70 - 1.25; p = 0.667), hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.56 - 1.26; p = 0.391) or noninvasive ventilation (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39 - 1.05, p = 0.075). In the trial sequential analysis, the number of events included was lower than the optimal information size with a global type I error > 0.05. CONCLUSION: In the present study and setting, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a reduction of the need for intubation or re-intubation in critically ill patients.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 18 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in the prevention of intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients compared to conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation. METHODS: This systematic review was performed through an electronic database search of articles published from 1966 to April 2018. The primary outcome was the need for intubation or re-intubation. The secondary outcomes were therapy escalation, mortality at the longest follow-up, hospital mortality and the need for noninvasive ventilation. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 3,978 patients were included. There was no reduction in the need for intubation or re-intubation with high-flow nasal cannula (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52 - 1.01; p = 0.056). There was no difference in the need for therapy escalation (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 - 1.08, p = 0.144), mortality at the longest follow-up (OR 0.94; 95%CI 0.70 - 1.25; p = 0.667), hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.56 - 1.26; p = 0.391) or noninvasive ventilation (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.39 - 1.05, p = 0.075). In the trial sequential analysis, the number of events included was lower than the optimal information size with a global type I error > 0.05. CONCLUSION: In the present study and setting, high-flow nasal cannula was not associated with a reduction of the need for intubation or re-intubation in critically ill patients.

Key concepts: Medicine, Nasal cannula, Intubation, Anesthesia, Critically ill, Oxygen therapy, Mechanical ventilation, Cannula

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The effects of high-flow nasal cannula on intubation and re-intubation in critically ill patients: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis — Research Paper | ScholarLens