Tuesday, August 27, 2019

High Flow Nasal Cannual vs. Conventional Oxygen Therapy vs. Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation

Can High-flow Nasal Cannula Reduce the Rate of Endotracheal Intubation in Adult Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

I need help with this. Is it me or is this an apples to oranges study? I ask that because the authors compared high flow nasal cannula to conventional oxygen therapy and then they compared HFNC to NIPPV. Okay, the COT versus HFNC is an easy one to settle. Fewer people are going to be intubated if they’re on HFNC, all comers. But the caveats kick in when the authors compare HFNC to NIPPV which many of you know as BiPAP. My issue is because they included patients who were having acute exacerbations of COPD, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, asthma exacerbations, and ARDS in the HFNC vs NIV arm of the study. It is my opinion that that’s a bit ridiculous bc we know (and knew in 2017 when this study was published) that those patient populations more often than not need more support than what HFNC can provide. I will say there is data for HFNC in all those settings, but not enough to prove a benefit to NIV. Can you chime in below with your thoughts? I don’t think they should have looked at all comers for HFNC. Taking it by disease processes which other authors have done would yield actual real world results. These devices need to be carefully tailored to the patients you are treating. I’m more than willing to change my mind but I need help. Thanks.  

-EJ

Link to abstract

Check out some resources I have personally found value in and recommend over at my My Amazon Store. This is an affiliate link which means that I may make a small commission if you make any purchase on Amazon after clicking on a product, you do not even have to purchase something I recommended. Thank you for supporting my work. 






1 comment:

  1. yes, those are odd populations to pick.

    here is something else i don't get

    "In patients with ARF, HFNC is a more reliable alternative than NIPPV to reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation than COT."

    buuut just before that

    "Compared with COT, HFNC was associated with a lower rate of endotracheal intubation (z = 2.55, P = .01) while no significant difference was found in the comparison with NIPPV (z = 1.40, P = .16)."

    am i reading this wrong or doesnt it say there was no difference with HFNC and NIPPV for intubation. so is the conclusion section wrong?

    ReplyDelete