Andrew J E Seely1,2,3,4, Bram Rochwerg5,6, Shannon M Fernando7,8, Alexandre Tran1,2,3, Behnam Sadeghirad9,5, Karen E A Burns5,10,11, Eddy Fan10,12,13,14, Daniel Brodie15,16, Laveena Munshi10,12,13, Ewan C Goligher10,12,13,14, Deborah J Cook5,6, Robert A Fowler10,12,17, Margaret S Herridge10,12,13,14, Pierre Cardinal1, Samir Jaber18,19, Morten Hylander Møller20, Arnaud W Thille21,22, Niall D Ferguson10,12,13,14, Arthur S Slutsky10,11, Laurent J Brochard10,11. 1. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 7. Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. sfernando@qmed.ca. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. sfernando@qmed.ca. 9. Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 10. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 11. Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 12. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 13. Department of Medicine, Sinai Health System and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 14. Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 15. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. 16. Center for Acute Respiratory Failure, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 17. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 18. Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Montpellier, PhyMedExp, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France. 19. Département de Médecine Intensive et Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Montpellier, PhyMedExp, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France. 20. Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Righospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 21. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers, Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Poitiers, France. 22. INSERM Centre d'Investigation Clinique 1402, ALIVE, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in reducing extubation failure among critically ill adults. METHODS: We searched databases from inception through October 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating noninvasive respiratory support therapies (NIPPV, HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy, or a combination of these) following extubation in critically ill adults. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of our findings. RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs (6806 patients). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIPPV (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82]) and HFNC (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87]) reduced reintubation (both moderate certainty). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effect was highest in patients with increased baseline risk of reintubation. As compared to HFNC, no difference in incidence of reintubation was seen with NIPPV (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38], low certainty). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, neither NIPPV (OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04], moderate certainty) or HFNC (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24], low certainty) reduced short-term mortality. Consistent findings were demonstrated across multiple subgroups, including high- and low-risk patients. These results were replicated when evaluating noninvasive strategies for prevention (prophylaxis), but not in rescue (application only after evidence of deterioration) situations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both NIPPV and HFNC reduced reintubation in critically ill adults, compared to conventional oxygen therapy. NIPPV did not reduce incidence of reintubation when compared to HFNC. These findings support the preventative application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies to mitigate extubation failure in critically ill adults, but not in rescue conditions.
PURPOSE: Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in reducing extubation failure among critically ill adults. METHODS: We searched databases from inception through October 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating noninvasive respiratory support therapies (NIPPV, HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy, or a combination of these) following extubation in critically ill adults. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of our findings. RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs (6806 patients). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIPPV (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82]) and HFNC (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87]) reduced reintubation (both moderate certainty). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effect was highest in patients with increased baseline risk of reintubation. As compared to HFNC, no difference in incidence of reintubation was seen with NIPPV (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38], low certainty). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, neither NIPPV (OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04], moderate certainty) or HFNC (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24], low certainty) reduced short-term mortality. Consistent findings were demonstrated across multiple subgroups, including high- and low-risk patients. These results were replicated when evaluating noninvasive strategies for prevention (prophylaxis), but not in rescue (application only after evidence of deterioration) situations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both NIPPV and HFNC reduced reintubation in critically ill adults, compared to conventional oxygen therapy. NIPPV did not reduce incidence of reintubation when compared to HFNC. These findings support the preventative application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies to mitigate extubation failure in critically ill adults, but not in rescue conditions.
Authors: Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Andrés Esteban; Carlos Apezteguia; Marco González; Yaseen Arabi; Marcos I Restrepo; Federico Gordo; Cristina Santos; Jamal A Alhashemi; Fernando Pérez; Oscar Peñuelas; Antonio Anzueto Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Leena Rizvi; Deborah J Cook; Gerald Lebovic; Peter Dodek; Jesús Villar; Arthur S Slutsky; Andrew Jones; Farhad N Kapadia; David J Gattas; Scott K Epstein; Paolo Pelosi; Kallirroi Kefala; Maureen O Meade Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hannah Wunsch; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Derek C Angus; Mary E Hartman; Eric B Milbrandt; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Benjamin Hibbert; Bram Rochwerg; Shannon M Fernando; Rebecca Mathew; Behnam Sadeghirad; Daniel Brodie; Emilie P Belley-Côté; Holger Thiele; Sean van Diepen; Eddy Fan; Pietro Di Santo; Trevor Simard; Juan J Russo; Alexandre Tran; Bruno Lévy; Alain Combes Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 6.713
Authors: Padmanabhan Ramnarayan; Alvin Richards-Belle; Laura Drikite; Michelle Saull; Izabella Orzechowska; Robert Darnell; Zia Sadique; Julie Lester; Kevin P Morris; Lyvonne N Tume; Peter J Davis; Mark J Peters; Richard G Feltbower; Richard Grieve; Karen Thomas; Paul R Mouncey; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 157.335