Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis
LIN Xi, JIA Peng, LI Xiao-Qin, LIU Qin
Department of Pediatrics, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan 646000, China
Abstract：Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in neonates. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang Database, CNKI, and Weipu Database were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HFNC versus nCPAP in the treatment of neonatal RDS published up to April 1, 2020. RevMan5.3 software was used to perform a Meta analysis of the eligible RCTs. Results A total of 12 RCTs were included, with 2 861 neonates in total, among whom 2 698 neonates (94.30%) had a gestational age of ≥ 28 weeks and 163 (5.70%) had a gestational age of < 28 weeks. For primary respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly higher rate of treatment failure than the nCPAP group (RR=1.86, 95% CI:1.53-2.25, P < 0.001), but there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (P=0.40) and the rate of use of pulmonary surfactant (P=0.77). For post-extubation respiratory support, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the treatment failure rate, reintubation rate, and total oxygen supply time (P > 0.05). For primary respiratory support and post-extubation respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly lower incidence rate of nasal injury than the nCPAP group (P < 0.001), and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the mortality rate and incidence rates of the complications such as air leak syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (P > 0.05). Conclusions Based on the current clinical evidence, HFNC has a higher failure rate than nCPAP when used as primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS, and therefore it is not recommended to use HFNC as the primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS. In RDS neonates with a gestational age of ≥ 28 weeks, HFNC can be used as post-extubation respiratory support in the weaning phase.
LIN Xi,JIA Peng,LI Xiao-Qin et al. Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis[J]. CJCP, 2020, 22(11): 1164-1171.
Nielsen KR, Ellington LE, Gray AJ, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula on expiratory pressure and ventilation in infant, pediatric, and adult models[J]. Respir Care, 2018, 63(2):147-157.
Zivanovic S, Scrivens A, Panza R, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy as primary respiratory support for preterm infants without the need for rescue with nasal continuous positive airway pressure[J]. Neonatology, 2019, 115(2):175-181.
[6]
Hegde S, Prodhan P. Serious air leak syndrome complicating high-flow nasal cannula therapy:a report of 3 cases[J]. Pediatrics, 2013, 131(3):e939-e944.
[7]
Kang BJ, Koh Y, Lim CM, et al. Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2015, 41(4):623-632.
[8]
Yoder BA, Manley B, Collins C, et al. Consensus approach to nasal high-flow therapy in neonates[J]. J Perinatol, 2017, 37(7):809-813.
[9]
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0)[EB/OL]. (2011-03-20)[2020-04-10]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
[10]
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:is blinding necessary?[J]. Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12.
[11]
Armanian AM, Iranpour R, Parvaneh M, et al. Heated humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is not an effective method for initial treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) versus nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP)[J]. J Res Med Sci, 2019, 24:73.
[12]
Farhat AS, Mohammadzadeh A, Mamuri GA, et al. Comparison of nasal non-invasive ventilation methods in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Iran J Neonatol, 2018, 9(4):53-60.
[13]
Glackin SJ, O'Sullivan A, George S, et al. High flow nasal cannula versus NCPAP, duration to full oral feeds in preterm infants:a randomised controlled trial[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2017, 102(4):F329-F332.
[14]
Kadivar M, Mosayebi Z, Razi N, et al. High flow nasal cannulae versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome managed with INSURE method:a randomized clinical trial[J]. Iran J Med Sci, 2016, 41(6):494-500.
[15]
Lavizzari A, Colnaghi M, Ciuffini F, et al. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome of prematurity:a randomized clinical noninferiority trial[J]. JAMA Pediatr, 2016:E1-E7.
[16]
Manley BJ, Arnolda GRB, Wright IMR, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy for newborn infants in special care nurseries[J]. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(21):2031-2040.
[17]
Murki S, Singh J, Khant C, et al. High-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for primary respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress:a randomized controlled trial[J]. Neonatology, 2018, 113(3):235-241.
[18]
Roberts CT, Owen LS, Manley BJ, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants[J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 375(12):1142-1151.
[19]
Shin J, Park K, Lee EH, et al. Humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as an initial respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress:a randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2017, 32(4):650-655.
[20]
Shokouhi M, Basiri B, Sabzehei MK, et al. Efficacy and complications of humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome after surfactant therapy[J]. Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2019, 21(2):e83615.
[21]
Soonsawad S, Tongsawang N, Nuntnarumit P. Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula for weaning from continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants:a randomized controlled trial[J]. Neonatology, 2016, 110(3):204-209.
[22]
Yoder BA, Stoddard RA, Li M, et al. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates[J]. Pediatrics, 2013, 131(5):e1482-e1490.
Sweet DG, Carnielli V, Greisen G, et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome-2019 update[J]. Neonatology, 2019, 115(4):432-450.
[25]
Morris JV, Kapetanstrataki M, Parslow RC, et al. Patterns of use of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula therapy in PICUs in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland[J]. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2019, 20(3):223-232.
[26]
Conte F, Orfeo L, Gizzi C, et al. Rapid systematic review shows that using a high-flow nasal cannula is inferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure as first-line support in preterm neonates[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2018, 107(10):1684-1696.
[27]
Liew Z, Fenton AC, Harigopal S, et al. Physiological effects of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in preterm infants[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2020, 105(1):87-93.
[28]
Frizzola M, Miller TL, Rodriguez ME, et al. High-flow nasal cannula:impact on oxygenation and ventilation in an acute lung injury model[J]. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2011, 46(1):67-74.
[29]
Mazmanyan P, Darakchyan M, Pinkham MI, et al. Mechanisms of nasal high flow therapy in newborns[J]. J Appl Physiol (1985), 2020, 128(4):822-829.
