High-flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in children with severe asthma attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The utility of various adjunctive therapies, including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and bilevel positive airway pressure, to treat severe asthma attacks and avoid invasive mechanical ventilation has recently been investigated. HFNC in particular has received attention as a viable potential alternative to mechanical ventilation. Our goal with this review was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of HFNC with those achieved using conventional oxygen therapy or other non-invasive ventilation (NIV) methods in severe asthma attacks. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted of multiple databases, including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and gray literature repositories, for articles published from August 25, 2014, to August 25, 2024. Results of meta-analysis using a random-effects model are presented in a forest plot. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB-2) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 criteria and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42024558656). Results: Nine studies involving 14,606 subjects were included in this meta-analysis. Pulmonary scores tended to improve with HFNC therapy, but this improvement did not reach statistical significance (P>0.05). Pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission rates and need for escalation of support did not significantly differ from those of standard oxygen therapy or other NIV modalities. HFNC therapy led to a modest but significant increase in readmission (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.07-9.24; P=0.04). PICU length-of-stay was comparable across groups, and mortality among HFNC-treated patients remained less than 1%. Overall evidence quality ranged from very low to low. Conclusions: HFNC therapy did not result in superior outcomes over standard oxygen therapy and other NIV modalities. Current evidence, however, was of low quality, highlighting the need for further research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".