Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Immunocompromise and Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a common cause of emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) is widely used for patients with ARF.

Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the latest evidence regarding the application of HFNC in immunocompromised patients with ARF.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to January 2019. The primary outcome was short-term mortality and the secondary outcomes were intubation rate and length of ICU stay.

Results: Eight studies involving 2,179 immunocompromised subjects with ARF were included. No significant differences for short-term mortality were observed when comparing HFNC with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 1.09; p = 0.25, I² = 47%) and with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.18; p = 0.16, I² = 58%). Lower intubation rates were found when comparing HFNC with COT (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.03, I² = 0%) and no significant difference was found between HFNC and NIV (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.19; p = 0.22, I² = 67%). The length of ICU stay was similar when comparing HFNC with COT (mean difference [MD] 0.59; 95% CI -1.68 to 2.85; p = 0.61, I² = 56%), but was significantly shorter when HFNC was compared with NIV (MD -2.13; 95% CI -3.98 to -0.29; p = 0.02, I² = 0%).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with use of HFNC when compared with COT or NIV for immunocompromised patients with ARF. A lower intubation rate than COT and a shorter length of ICU stay than NIV were observed in the HFNC group.

Keywords: acute respiratory failure; high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy; immunocompromised; noninvasive ventilation.