Michael C Sklar1,2, Alaa Mohammed2, Ani Orchanian-Cheff3, Lorenzo Del Sorbo2, Sangeeta Mehta2, Laveena Munshi4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Sinai Health System/University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Library and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Sinai Health System/University Health Network, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. laveena.munshi@sinaihealthsystem.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal-cannula (HFNC) may be an oxygen modality useful for preventing invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality; however, its role in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is not clearly defined. We sought to evaluate the impact of HFNC on mortality across immunocompromised subjects compared to alternative noninvasive oxygen therapies, namely conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: We systematically searched the major databases to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (until May 2018). We included studies reporting the use of HFNC in immunocompromised subjects and evaluated its impact on mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Upon review of 6,506 titles, 13 studies (1,956 subjects) fulfilled our inclusion criteria (4 RCTs, 9 observational studies). The predominant cause of immunocompromised status was cancer. Bacterial pneumonia was the most common cause of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with a median PaO2/FIO2 of 145 mm Hg (interquartile range 115-175). HFNC was used as the first oxygen strategy in 474 subjects compared to NIV (242 subjects) and conventional O2 therapy (703 subjects). There was a 46% rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and 36% mortality. Mortality at the longest available follow-up was lower with HFNC compared to the oxygen therapy controls (NIV or conventional O2 therapy) in 7 studies (1,429 subjects; relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93, P = .01). There was a lower rate of invasive mechanical ventilation with HFNC compared to the oxygen therapy controls across 8 studies (1,529 subjects, relative risk 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96, P = .02). These results were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a need to develop a greater evidence base evaluating the utility of HFNC in immunocompromised subjects. In our exploratory analysis, HFNC was found to decrease mortality and use of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to alternative noninvasive oxygen controls. These results are meant to be exploratory. Higher-quality studies evaluating a more homogeneous population are needed to further elucidate its benefit.
BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal-cannula (HFNC) may be an oxygen modality useful for preventing invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality; however, its role in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is not clearly defined. We sought to evaluate the impact of HFNC on mortality across immunocompromised subjects compared to alternative noninvasive oxygen therapies, namely conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: We systematically searched the major databases to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (until May 2018). We included studies reporting the use of HFNC in immunocompromised subjects and evaluated its impact on mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Upon review of 6,506 titles, 13 studies (1,956 subjects) fulfilled our inclusion criteria (4 RCTs, 9 observational studies). The predominant cause of immunocompromised status was cancer. Bacterial pneumonia was the most common cause of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with a median PaO2/FIO2 of 145 mm Hg (interquartile range 115-175). HFNC was used as the first oxygen strategy in 474 subjects compared to NIV (242 subjects) and conventional O2 therapy (703 subjects). There was a 46% rate of invasive mechanical ventilation and 36% mortality. Mortality at the longest available follow-up was lower with HFNC compared to the oxygen therapy controls (NIV or conventional O2 therapy) in 7 studies (1,429 subjects; relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93, P = .01). There was a lower rate of invasive mechanical ventilation with HFNC compared to the oxygen therapy controls across 8 studies (1,529 subjects, relative risk 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.96, P = .02). These results were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a need to develop a greater evidence base evaluating the utility of HFNC in immunocompromised subjects. In our exploratory analysis, HFNC was found to decrease mortality and use of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to alternative noninvasive oxygen controls. These results are meant to be exploratory. Higher-quality studies evaluating a more homogeneous population are needed to further elucidate its benefit.
Authors: Bruno L Ferreyro; Federico Angriman; Laveena Munshi; Lorenzo Del Sorbo; Niall D Ferguson; Bram Rochwerg; Michelle J Ryu; Refik Saskin; Hannah Wunsch; Bruno R da Costa; Damon C Scales Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bruno L Ferreyro; Federico Angriman; Laveena Munshi; Lorenzo Del Sorbo; Niall D Ferguson; Bram Rochwerg; Michelle J Ryu; Refik Saskin; Hannah Wunsch; Bruno R da Costa; Damon C Scales Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-04-26