Effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nHigh-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy reduces the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and acute exacerbation but does not increase exercise capacity or decrease hospitalisation or mortality. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, the use of high-flow nasal cannula decreases arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide and increases the partial pressure of oxygen and 6-min walking distance.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies published from database inception to November 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist). The primary outcomes were partial pressure of carbon dioxide and partial pressure of oxygen, and the secondary outcomes were transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and 6-min walking distance.\n\n\nRESULTS\nNine studies (680 patients) were included. high-flow nasal cannula did not decrease partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with the control interventions (mean difference\xa0=\xa0-0.81, 95% confidence interval: -2.68 to 1.06, p\xa0=\xa0.395; I2 \xa0=\xa042.9%, pheterogeneity \xa0=\xa0.105). high-flow nasal cannula decreased partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with long-term oxygen therapy (mean difference\xa0=\xa0-3.25, 95% confidence interval: -5.65 to -0.85, p\xa0=\xa0.008; I2 \xa0=\xa00%, pheterogeneity \xa0 =\xa0.375); no difference was observed for the control modalities. high-flow nasal cannula resulted in better partial pressure of carbon dioxide compared with control interventions in hypoxemic patients (mean difference\xa0=\xa0-2.59, 95% confidence interval: -4.82 to -0.35, p\xa0=\xa0.023; I2 \xa0=\xa032.5%, pheterogeneity \xa0=\xa0.224), but not in other types of patients. high-flow nasal cannula did not increase partial pressure of oxygen compared with the control interventions (mean difference\xa0=\xa01.17, 95% confidence interval: -1.50 to 3.83, p\xa0=\xa0.390; I2 \xa0=\xa00%, pheterogeneity \xa0=\xa0.660). high-flow nasal cannula decreased transcutaneous carbon dioxide tension (transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide) compared with the control interventions (mean difference\xa0=\xa02.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.07-4.68, p\xa0=\xa0.044; I2 \xa0=\xa08.7%, pheterogeneity \xa0 =\xa0.295). high-flow nasal cannula increased 6-min walking distance compared with the control interventions (mean difference\xa0=\xa018.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-,35.57, p\xa0=\xa0.040; I2 \xa0=\xa00%, pheterogeneity \xa0=\xa0.918). The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nHigh-flow nasal cannula did not significantly decrease partial pressure of carbon dioxide or increase partial pressure of oxygen in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, which is different from the previous meta-analysis, but it decreases transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and increased 6-min walking distance.\n\n\nRELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE\nThis meta-analysis shows that in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high-flow nasal cannula improves both transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide and 6-min walking distance, suggesting the high-flow nasal cannula has benefits in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Considering that the literature suggests no impact of high-flow nasal cannula on hospitalisation and mortality, the benefits of high-flow nasal cannula might be limited to the patients who survive the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease events. Still, the global impact of high-flow nasal cannula on the quality of life of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease should be examined.