Open AccessHigh‐flow nasal cannula oxygen versus conventional oxygen for hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Author(s) -
Huang Xuan,
Du Yanping,
Ma Zhiyi,
Zhang Huaping,
Jun Liu,
Wang Zhiyong,
Lin Meixia,
Ni Fayu,
Li Xi,
Tan Hui,
Tan Shifan
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the clinical respiratory journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.789
H-Index - 33
eISSN - 1752-699X
pISSN - 1752-6981
DOI - 10.1111/crj.13317
Subject(s) - nasal cannula , medicine , copd , hypercapnia , oxygen therapy , anesthesia , cochrane library , randomized controlled trial , respiratory failure , meta analysis , cannula , surgery , acidosis
Low‐concentration oxygen is an established way for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with Type II respiratory failure. Hypercapnia can complicate both COPD exacerbations and stable COPD. Treating with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can reduce carbon dioxide tension in arterial (PaCO 2 ) in hypercapnic COPD. As an open system, high‐flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) is easy to tolerate and use. More researches are needed to focus on how HFNC is used to treat COPD patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure. Methods The Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL database were retrieved from inception to October 2019. Eligible trials were clinical randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of HFNC and conventional oxygen on hypercapnic COPD patients. Two researchers assessed the quality of each study and extracted the data into RevMan 5.3 independently. The primary outcome was PaCO 2 and the secondary outcome was PaO 2 . Results Four RCTs with 329 patients were included. The research results indicated that PaCO 2 in the HFNC group was similar to the conventional oxygen group. No significant difference were observed in PaCO 2 (MD −0.98, CI: −2.67 to 0.71, Z = 1.14, p = 0.25) and PaO 2 (MD −0.72, CI: −6.99 to 5.55, Z = 0.23, p = 0.82) between the HFNC group and conventional oxygen group. Conclusions Our meta‐analysis showed no difference in PO 2 and PCO 2 between the HFNC and conventional oxygen. But we should treat this conclusion with caution because the number of studies and participants is small and, there is heterogeneity in the PaO 2 and PCO 2 measurements between stable and AECOPD.