停止高流量鼻氧治疗急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭的标准:随机对照试验的系统回顾

Jason Timothy Pan, Kay Choong See
{"title":"停止高流量鼻氧治疗急性缺氧性呼吸衰竭的标准:随机对照试验的系统回顾","authors":"Jason Timothy Pan,&nbsp;Kay Choong See","doi":"10.1007/s44254-024-00060-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been widely promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic to circumvent invasive mechanical ventilation. While there are several reported benefits, randomized trials demonstrate inconsistent variable success. We hypothesize that this is due to variable stopping criteria. This systematic review’s purpose is to review these criteria and investigate any associations with HFNC outcomes. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for all English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2022, focusing on respiratory rate as a threshold for escalation of respiratory support. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on trial failure criteria, and intubation and mortality benefits were studied. Fisher’s exact test was performed following a 5% level of significance. Of the 22 RCTs included, 4 (18.2%) reported significant intubation benefits and 1 (0.05%) reported significant mortality benefit. The presence of objective failure criteria with a prespecified high respiratory rate threshold (35 breaths per minute or higher) had a significant effect on intubation rate reduction (<i>P</i> = 0.02). However, this result might be limited by the heterogeneity of the included studies. Further RCTs are required to confirm this conclusion. Given that a high respiratory rate threshold was associated with a reduction of intubation without increasing mortality, we hypothesize that among patients receiving HFNC who were eventually not intubated, the avoidance of intubation led to better clinical outcomes, while among eventually intubated patients, delays led to poorer outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100082,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44254-024-00060-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criteria for stopping high-flow nasal oxygen for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Jason Timothy Pan,&nbsp;Kay Choong See\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44254-024-00060-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been widely promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic to circumvent invasive mechanical ventilation. While there are several reported benefits, randomized trials demonstrate inconsistent variable success. We hypothesize that this is due to variable stopping criteria. This systematic review’s purpose is to review these criteria and investigate any associations with HFNC outcomes. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for all English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2022, focusing on respiratory rate as a threshold for escalation of respiratory support. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on trial failure criteria, and intubation and mortality benefits were studied. Fisher’s exact test was performed following a 5% level of significance. Of the 22 RCTs included, 4 (18.2%) reported significant intubation benefits and 1 (0.05%) reported significant mortality benefit. The presence of objective failure criteria with a prespecified high respiratory rate threshold (35 breaths per minute or higher) had a significant effect on intubation rate reduction (<i>P</i> = 0.02). However, this result might be limited by the heterogeneity of the included studies. Further RCTs are required to confirm this conclusion. Given that a high respiratory rate threshold was associated with a reduction of intubation without increasing mortality, we hypothesize that among patients receiving HFNC who were eventually not intubated, the avoidance of intubation led to better clinical outcomes, while among eventually intubated patients, delays led to poorer outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science\",\"volume\":\"2 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44254-024-00060-8.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-024-00060-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Perioperative Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44254-024-00060-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 大流行期间,高流量鼻插管 (HFNC) 被广泛推广,以规避有创机械通气。据报道,这种方法有多种益处,但随机试验显示其成功率参差不齐。我们假设这是由于停止标准不一造成的。本系统综述的目的就是回顾这些标准,并研究它们与 HFNC 结果之间的关联。我们在 PubMed 和 EMBASE 上检索了 2007 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间发表的所有英文随机对照试验 (RCT),重点关注呼吸频率作为呼吸支持升级的阈值。根据试验失败标准进行了分组分析,并对插管和死亡率的益处进行了研究。费雪精确检验的显著性水平为 5%。在纳入的 22 项研究中,4 项(18.2%)报告了显著的插管获益,1 项(0.05%)报告了显著的死亡率获益。预先指定的高呼吸频率阈值(35 次/分钟或更高)的客观失败标准对降低插管率有显著影响(P = 0.02)。然而,这一结果可能会受到所纳入研究的异质性的限制。需要更多的 RCT 研究来证实这一结论。鉴于高呼吸频率阈值与减少插管而不增加死亡率有关,我们假设,在接受高频NC但最终未插管的患者中,避免插管可获得更好的临床预后,而在最终插管的患者中,延迟插管会导致较差的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Criteria for stopping high-flow nasal oxygen for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been widely promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic to circumvent invasive mechanical ventilation. While there are several reported benefits, randomized trials demonstrate inconsistent variable success. We hypothesize that this is due to variable stopping criteria. This systematic review’s purpose is to review these criteria and investigate any associations with HFNC outcomes. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for all English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2022, focusing on respiratory rate as a threshold for escalation of respiratory support. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on trial failure criteria, and intubation and mortality benefits were studied. Fisher’s exact test was performed following a 5% level of significance. Of the 22 RCTs included, 4 (18.2%) reported significant intubation benefits and 1 (0.05%) reported significant mortality benefit. The presence of objective failure criteria with a prespecified high respiratory rate threshold (35 breaths per minute or higher) had a significant effect on intubation rate reduction (P = 0.02). However, this result might be limited by the heterogeneity of the included studies. Further RCTs are required to confirm this conclusion. Given that a high respiratory rate threshold was associated with a reduction of intubation without increasing mortality, we hypothesize that among patients receiving HFNC who were eventually not intubated, the avoidance of intubation led to better clinical outcomes, while among eventually intubated patients, delays led to poorer outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信