MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087005605 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004576

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately Postextubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3087005605 on OpenAlexaff
David Granton, Dipayan Chaudhuri, Dominic Wang, Sharon Einav, Yigal Helviz, Tommaso Mauri, Jordi Mancebo, Jean-Pierre Frat, Sameer Jog, Gonzalo Hernández, Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore, Carol Hodgson, Samir Jaber, Laurent Brochard, Vatsal Trivedi, Jean-Damien Ricard, Ewan C. Goligher, Karen E. A. Burns, Bram Rochwerg

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNasal cannulaNoninvasive ventilationMeta-analysisOxygen therapyAnesthesiaCannulaMechanical ventilationIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Reintubation after failed extubation is associated with increased mortality and longer hospital length of stay. Noninvasive oxygenation modalities may prevent reintubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula after extubation in critically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials comparing high-flow nasal cannula to other noninvasive methods of oxygen delivery after extubation in critically ill adults. DATA EXTRACTION: We included the following outcomes: reintubation, postextubation respiratory failure, mortality, use of noninvasive ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, complications, and comfort. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1,594 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula decreased reintubation (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70; moderate certainty) and postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91; very low certainty), but had no effect on mortality (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.52; moderate certainty), or ICU length of stay (mean difference, 0.05 d fewer; 95% CI, 0.83 d fewer to 0.73 d more; high certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may decrease use of noninvasive ventilation (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34-1.22; moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0.98 d fewer; 95% CI, 2.16 d fewer to 0.21 d more; moderate certainty) compared with conventional oxygen therapy, however, certainty was limited by imprecision. Compared with noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula had no effect on reintubation (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.57; low certainty), mortality (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.82-1.53; moderate certainty), or postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; very low certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may reduce ICU length of stay (moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (moderate certainty) compared with noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula reduces reintubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but not compared with noninvasive ventilation after extubation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207