Introduction: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) of respiratory management strategies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) have been reported, but no previous study has compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygenation therapy (SOT), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for de novo AHRF. Therefore, we conducted an NMA to assess the effectiveness of these four respiratory strategies in patients with de novo AHRF.
Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults aged ≥18 years with AHRF and RCTs that compared two different oxygenation techniques (SOT, NIV, HFNO, or IMV) were selected. A frequentist-based approach with multivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used. The outcomes were mortality and intubation rates.
Results: Among the 14,263 records initially identified, 25 studies (3302 patients) were included. In the analysis of mortality, compared to SOT, NIV (risk ratio [RR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.95) reduced mortality; however, IMV (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.57-1.78) and HFNO (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66-1.20) did not. For assessments of the intubation incidence, compared to SOT, NIV use (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) was associated with a reduction in intubation, but HFNO (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11) was not significant.
Conclusions: Our NMA demonstrated that only NIV showed clinical benefits compared with SOT as an initial respiratory strategy for de novo AHRF. Further investigation, especially comparison with HFNO, is warranted.
Trial registration: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020213948 , 11/11/2020).
Keywords: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; High-flow nasal oxygen; Network meta-analysis; Noninvasive ventilation.
© 2022. The Author(s).