High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy versus Non-Invasive Ventilation in patients at very high risk for extubating failure: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 19; no. 4; p. e0299693
• Main Authors: Al Nufaiei, Ziyad F, Al Zhranei, Raid M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 03.04.2024; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Artificial respiration; Care and treatment; Clinical trials; Complications and side effects; Decision-making; Lung diseases, Obstructive; Medical research; Medicine and Health Sciences; Medicine, Experimental; Oxygen therapy; Patient outcomes; Physical Sciences; Research and Analysis Methods; Saudi Arabia
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299693
• ISSN: 1932-6203

Mechanical ventilation is commonly used for managing respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but weaning patients off ventilator support can be challenging and associated with complications. While many patients respond well to Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), a significant proportion may not respond as favourably. We aimed to assess whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is equally effective as NIV in reducing extubation failure among previously intubated COPD patients. This systematic review was carried out in line with PRISMA guidelines We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until February 15, 2023. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) of adults at high risk for extubating failure were included. We examined the use of HFNC as the intervention and NIV as the comparator. Our outcome of interest included, reintubation rate, length of hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) stay, adverse events, and time to reintubation. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for randomized trials to assess risk of bias. We identified 348 citations, 11 of which were included, representing 2,666 patients. The trials indicate that HFNC is comparable to NIV in preventing reintubation after extubating in COPD patients. In comparison to NIV, HFNC also produced improved tolerance, comfort, and less complications such as airway care interventions. NIV with active humification may be more effective that HFNC in avoiding reintubation in patients who are at extremely high risk for extubating failure. The inconclusive nature of emerging evidence highlights the need for additional studies to establish the efficacy and suitability of HFNC as an alternative to NIV for previously intubated COPD patients. Clinicians should consider the available options and individualize their approach based on patient characteristics. Future research should focus on addressing these gaps in knowledge to guide clinical decision-making and optimize outcomes for this patient population.