Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Conflicting recommendations exist on whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy should be administered to adult patients in critical care with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate its effect on intubation rates. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception to April 2016. We included RCTs that compared HFNC oxygen therapy with usual care (conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation) in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Because of the different methodologies and variation in clinical outcomes, we conducted 2 subgroup analyses according to oxygen therapy used and disease severity. We pooled data using random-effects models. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation. RESULTS: We included 6 RCTs (n = 1892). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, HFNC oxygen therapy was associated with a lower intubation rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38 to 0.94; I2 = 49%). We found no significant difference in the rate between HFNC oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; I2 = 2%). In the subgroup analysis by disease severity, no significant differences were found in the intubation rate between HFNC oxygen therapy and either conventional oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation (interaction p = 0.3 and 0.4, respectively). INTERPRETATION: The intubation rate with HFNC oxygen therapy was lower than the rate with conventional oxygen therapy and similar to the rate with noninvasive ventilation among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs showed that HFNC reduces intubation compared with conventional oxygen (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99) but does not affect the risk of death or ICU length of stay.
“A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs [2] showed that HFNC reduces intubation compared with conventional oxygen (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74–0.99) but does not affect the risk of death or ICU length of stay [412–414].”
From Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [413]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 109
- Authors
- Ou, X., Hua, Y., Liu, J., Gong, C., & Zhao, W.
- Affiliations
- Sichuan University (CN)
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Publisher
- CMA Joule Inc.
- Published
- 2017-02-21
- Volume
- 189
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- E260-E267
- ISSN
- 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
- 1488-2329
- PMC
- PMC5318211
- OpenAlex
- W2590886410
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 3.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Airway Management and Intubation Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
- Keywords
- high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, endotracheal intubation, conventional oxygen therapy, non-invasive ventilation, disease severity, intensive care
- MeSH terms
- Cannula, Adult, Hypoxia, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Oxygen Inhalation Therapy, Respiratory Insufficiency, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Noninvasive Ventilation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review