Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

Autor:	Baldomero AK; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (A.K.B., A.C.M.)., Melzer AC; Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (A.K.B., A.C.M.)., Greer N; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (N.G., B.N.M., R.M., E.J.L.)., Majeski BN; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (N.G., B.N.M., R.M., E.J.L.)., MacDonald R; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (N.G., B.N.M., R.M., E.J.L.)., Linskens EJ; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (N.G., B.N.M., R.M., E.J.L.)., Wilt TJ; Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (T.J.W.).
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Annals of internal medicine [Ann Intern Med] 2021 Jul; Vol. 174 (7), pp. 952-966. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Apr 27.
DOI:	10.7326/M20-4675
Abstrakt:	Background: Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased. Purpose: To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults. Data Sources: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists. Study Selection: 29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV ( k  = 11) or COT ( k  = 21). Data Extraction: Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus. Data Synthesis: Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence). Limitations: Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized. Conclusion: Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu