Search

Background: The widespread diagnostic and therapeutic application of bronchoscopy is often associated with complications like desaturation. This systematic review and meta-analysis intend to scrutinize whether the high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is advantageous for providing respiratory support during bronchoscopic procedures under sedation, in comparison with other conventional modalities for oxygen therapy. Materials and methods: A thorough screening of electronic databases was done till 31st December 2021 after obtaining registration in PROSPERO (CRD42021245420). Randomized controlled trials (RCT), evaluating the impact of HFNC and standard/any other oxygen-delivery devices during bronchoscopy were included in this meta-analysis. Results: We retrieved in nine RCTs, with a total of 1306 patients, the application of HFNC during bronchoscopy led to decreased number of desaturation spells [relative risk (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.44, I² = 23%], higher nadir value of SpO2 [Mean difference (MD) 4.30, 95% CI 2.41-6.19, I² = 96%], and improved PaO2 from baseline (MD 21.77, 95% CI 2.8-40.74, I² = 99%), along with similar PaCO2 values (MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.82 to 1.13, I² = 58%) just after the procedure. However, apart from desaturation spell, the findings are significantly heterogeneous. In subgroup analysis, HFNC had significantly lesser desaturation spells and better oxygenation than low-flow devices, but in comparison to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) had a lower nadir value of SpO2 with no other significant difference. Conclusion: High-flow nasal cannula led to greater oxygenation and prevented desaturation spells more effectively in comparison with low-flow devices like nasal cannula, venturi mask, etc., and may be considered as an alternative to NIV during bronchoscopy in certain high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) over noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is not known. We aimed to assess the incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 treated with either HFNC or NIV. METHODS: This was a single-center randomized controlled trial performed in the COVID-19 ICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital in New Delhi, India. One hundred and nine subjects with severe COVID-19 pneumonia presenting with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were recruited and allocated to either HFNC (n = 55) or NIV (n = 54) arm. Primary outcome was intubation by 48 h. Secondary outcomes were improvement in oxygenation by 48 h, intubation rate at day 7, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and PaO2/FIO2 ratio were similar in both the groups. Intubation rate at 48 h was similar between the groups (33% NIV vs 20% HFNC, relative risk 0.6, 95% CI 0.31-1.15, P = .12). Intubation rate at day 7 was lower in the HFNC (27.27%) compared to the NIV group (46.29%) (relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.99, P = .045), and this difference remained significant after adjustment for the incidence of chronic kidney disease and the arterial pH (adjusted OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.93, P = .03). Hospital mortality was similar between HFNC (29.1%) and NIV (46.2%) group (relative risk 0.6, 95% CI 0.38-1.04, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: We were not able to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement of oxygenation parameters nor of the intubation rate at 48 h between NIV and HFNC. These findings should be further tested in a larger randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]