High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) when compared with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF). DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and the international Health Technology Assessment database from inception to September 14, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized control studies that compared HFNC to NIPPV in adult patients with AHRF. For clinical outcomes, we included only parallel group and crossover randomized control trials (RCTs). For economic outcomes, we included any study design that evaluated cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost benefit analyses. DATA EXTRACTION: Clinical outcomes of interest included intubation, mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and patient-reported dyspnea. Economic outcomes of interest included costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included nine RCTs ( n = 1,539 patients) and one cost-effectiveness study. Compared with NIPPV, HFNC may have no effect on the need for intubation (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69–1.27; low certainty) and an uncertain effect on mortality (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59–1.21; very low certainty). In subgroup analysis, NIPPV delivered through the helmet interface—as opposed to the facemask interface—may reduce intubation compared with HFNC ( p = 0.006; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). There was no difference in ICU or hospital LOS (both low certainty) and an uncertain effect on patient-reported dyspnea (very low certainty). We could make no conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with NIPPV. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC and NIPPV may be similarly effective at reducing the need for intubation with an uncertain effect on mortality in hospitalized patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. More research evaluating different interfaces in varying clinical contexts is needed to improve generalizability and precision of findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".