Effects of high-flow nasal oxygen cannula versus other noninvasive ventilation in extubated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the effects of high-flow nasal oxygen cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in extubated patients with respiratory insufficiency.The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 28 February 2021, to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was reintubation within 24-72 hours after a planned extubation. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Six articles with1746 patients were included. The effect of HFNC on the reintubation rate was noninferior to that of NIV (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.44). The rate of treatment failure was 20.40% with HFNC versus 20.92% with NIV; this difference was nonsignificant (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.72-1.32, P = 0.85). HFNC reduced the rates of skin lesion occurrence (10.28% versus 23.82%, OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.53, P < 0.00001) and post-extubation respiratory failure (23.76% versus 25.56%, OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88, P = 0.006), compared with NIV.In extubated patients, HFNC was noninferior to NIV in the rate of reintubation and treatment failure. Compared with NIV, HFNC decreased the occurrence of skin lesions and post-extubation respiratory failure.