Purpose: The role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) as compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to address this issue. Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline and Embase until November 7th, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized prospective and retrospective evidence were selected. Observational studies were considered for sensitivity analysis. Primary outcome was mortality rate; intubation rate was a secondary outcome. Results: We included four studies in the primary analysis: one RCT, two RCT's post-hoc analyses and one retrospective study. We found no significant difference in short-term mortality comparing HFNT vs. COT: 1) ICU: n = 872 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.80 [0.44,1.45], p = 0.46, I2 = 30%, p = 0.24; 2) 28-day: n = 996 patients, OR = 0.79 [0.45,1.38], p = 0.40, I2 = 52%, p = 0.12). Conversely, we found a reduction of intubation rate in the HFNT group (n = 1052 patients, OR = 0.74 [0.55,0.98], p = 0.03, I2 = 7%, p = 0.36). The inclusion of one observational study for sensitivity analysis did not grossly change results. Conclusions: We found no benefit of HFNT over COT on mortality in immunocompromised patients with ARF. However, HFNT was associated with a lower intubation rate warranting further research.

Cortegiani, A., Crimi, C., Sanfilippo, F., Noto, A., Di Falco, D., Grasselli, G., et al. (2019). High flow nasal therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 50, 250-256 [10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.12.015].

High flow nasal therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cortegiani, Andrea
;
Gregoretti, Cesare;Giarratano, Antonino
2019-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: The role of high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) as compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure (ARF) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to address this issue. Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline and Embase until November 7th, 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized prospective and retrospective evidence were selected. Observational studies were considered for sensitivity analysis. Primary outcome was mortality rate; intubation rate was a secondary outcome. Results: We included four studies in the primary analysis: one RCT, two RCT's post-hoc analyses and one retrospective study. We found no significant difference in short-term mortality comparing HFNT vs. COT: 1) ICU: n = 872 patients, odds ratio (OR) = 0.80 [0.44,1.45], p = 0.46, I2 = 30%, p = 0.24; 2) 28-day: n = 996 patients, OR = 0.79 [0.45,1.38], p = 0.40, I2 = 52%, p = 0.12). Conversely, we found a reduction of intubation rate in the HFNT group (n = 1052 patients, OR = 0.74 [0.55,0.98], p = 0.03, I2 = 7%, p = 0.36). The inclusion of one observational study for sensitivity analysis did not grossly change results. Conclusions: We found no benefit of HFNT over COT on mortality in immunocompromised patients with ARF. However, HFNT was associated with a lower intubation rate warranting further research.
2019
Cortegiani, A., Crimi, C., Sanfilippo, F., Noto, A., Di Falco, D., Grasselli, G., et al. (2019). High flow nasal therapy in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 50, 250-256 [10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.12.015].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0883944118316757-main (1).pdf

Solo gestori archvio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 925.86 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
925.86 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/336474
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 15
  • Scopus 34
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact