MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999538424 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004217

Moderate Certainty Evidence Suggests the Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Does Not Decrease Hypoxia When Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy in the Peri-Intubation Period: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W2999538424 on OpenAlexaff
Dipayan Chaudhuri, David Granton, Dominic Xiang Wang, Sharon Einav, Yigal Helviz, Tommaso Mauri, Jean-Damien Ricard, Jordi Mancebo, Jean-Pierre Frat, Sameer Jog, Gonzalo Hernández, Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore, Carol Hodgson, Samir Jaber, Laurent Brochard, Karen E. A. Burns, Bram Rochwerg

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsImpactWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNasal cannulaMedicineIntubationAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialCannulaOxygen therapyHypoxemiaRandomizationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The role of high-flow nasal cannula during and before intubation is unclear despite a number of randomized clinical trials. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the benefits of high-flow nasal cannula in the peri-intubation period. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science). STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials that compared high-flow nasal cannula to other noninvasive oxygen delivery systems in the peri-intubation period. DATA EXTRACTION: Our primary outcome was severe desaturation (defined as peripheral oxygen saturation reading < 80% during intubation). Secondary outcomes included peri-intubation complications, apneic time, PaO2 before and after intubation, PaCO2 after intubation, ICU length of stay, and short-term mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 10 randomized clinical trials (n = 1,017 patients). High-flow nasal cannula had no effect on the occurrence rate of peri-intubation hypoxemia (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.42; 0.3% absolute risk reduction, moderate certainty), serious complications (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06), apneic time (mean difference, 10.3 s higher with high-flow nasal cannula; 95% CI, 11.0 s lower to 31.7 s higher), PaO2 measured after preoxygenation (mean difference, 3.6 mm Hg higher; 95% CI, 3.5 mm Hg lower to 10.7 mm Hg higher), or PaO2 measured after intubation (mean difference, 27.0 mm Hg higher; 95% CI, 13.2 mm Hg lower to 67.2 mm Hg higher), when compared with conventional oxygen therapy. There was also no effect on postintubation PaCO2, ICU length of stay, or 28-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-to-low certainty evidence that the use of high-flow nasal cannula likely has no effect on severe desaturation, serious complications, apneic time, oxygenation, ICU length of stay, or overall survival when used in the peri-intubation period when compared with conventional oxygen therapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.042
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207