Comparison of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants: a Meta-analysis

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2019.02.008

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants.

Methods

The English databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases including Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched to collect randomized controlled trial (RCT) researches which compared the clinical effects of HHHFNC and NCPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants. Preterm infants in HHHFNC group and NCPAP group were treated with HHHFNC and NCPAP modes, respectively. Retrieval time ranged from January 1, 2000 to July 31, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, evaluated the quality of the literatures, and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this research. Then, Meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 12.0 software to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC and NCPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants. The main outcome measurements included efficacy indexes (rates of treatment failure and reintubation) and safety indexes (incidence rates of nasal trauma and frequent hemorrhoid). The secondary outcome measurements included in-hospital mortality rate and incidence rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and the duration of reaching full enteral feedings.

Results

A total of 8 eligible RCT research literatures involving 1 037 preterm infants were included in the Meta analysis. Among them, there were 518 cases in HHHFNC group and 519 cases in NCPAP group. Meta-analysis showed the following results. ①In terms of efficacy, there were no significant differences between two groups in the treatment failure rate (OR=1.18, 95%CI: 0.87-1.59, P=0.286) and reintubation rate (OR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.67-1.30, P=0.687). While in terms of safety, HHHFNC had a significant advantage over NCPAP in reducing the incidence rates of nasal trauma (OR=0.17, 95%CI: 0.11-0.26, P<0.001), and frequent hemorrhoid (OR=0.24, 95%CI: 0.09-0.63, P=0.003). ②In terms of secondary outcome measurements, there were no significant differences between two groups in the in-hospital mortality rate (OR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.40-2.13, P=0.857), and incidence rates of BPD (OR=0.82, 95%CI: 0.60-1.11, P=0.202), IVH (OR=0.76, 95%CI: 0.46-1.27, P=0.299), ROP (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 0.69-1.73, P=0.713), PDA (OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.62-1.28, P=0.524), and duration of reaching full enteral feedings (SMD=0.47, 95%CI: -0.35-1.29, P=0.264). HHHFNC had a significant advantage over NCPAP in reducing the incidence rates of NEC (OR=0.56, 95%CI: 0.33-0.95, P=0.032).

Conclusions

HHHFNC appears to be similar to NCPAP in efficacy of preventing extubation failure in preterm infants. It is associated with significantly lower odds of nasal trauma, frequent hemorrhoid and NEC. However, it is recommended to be cautious as a preferred non-invasive ventilation mode to prevent extubation failure in preterm infants.

Key words: Continuous positive airway pressure, Randomized controlled trial, Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula, Nasal continuous positive airway pressure, Extubation, Meta-analysis, Infant, premature

表1 纳入研究的8篇随机对照试验研究文献的基本情况

纳入文献(第一作者，文献发表年)	国家	早产儿例数(例)		早产儿性别(男/女，例)		早产儿胎龄(周，?±s)		观察指标
纳入文献(第一作者，文献发表年)	国家	HHHFNC组	NCPAP组	HHHFNC组	NCPAP组	HHHFNC组	NCPAP组	观察指标
Collins，2013^[4]	澳大利亚	67	65	33/43	41/24	27.9±1.95	27.6±1.97	①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨
Kadivar，2016^[5]	伊朗	27	27	14/13	14/13	31.3^a	31.5^a	②④⑦⑩
Manley，2013^[6]	澳大利亚	152	151	89/63	72/69	27.7±2.1	27.5±1.9	①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑨⑩?
Soonsawad，2017^[7]	泰国	24	25	11/13	17/8	27.5(26, 30)^b	28(25,29.5)^b	①②④⑤⑦⑨⑩?
Yoder，2013^[8]	美国	75	75	未说明	未说明	未说明	未说明	①
康文清，2016^[9]	中国	79	82	未说明	未说明	29.1±1.0	29.2±1.1	①②③④⑥⑦⑨
李恺，2014^[10]	中国	28	31	17/11	16/15	32.6±1.5	32.8±1.7	①②④⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨⑩?
陈佳，2016^[11]	中国	66	63	41/25	40/23	30.2±3.7	30.5±3.3	①②③④⑤⑧⑨⑩

表1 纳入研究的8篇随机对照试验研究文献的基本情况

纳入文献(第一作者，文献发表年)	国家	早产儿例数(例)		早产儿性别(男/女，例)		早产儿胎龄(周，?±s)		观察指标
纳入文献(第一作者，文献发表年)	国家	HHHFNC组	NCPAP组	HHHFNC组	NCPAP组	HHHFNC组	NCPAP组	观察指标
Collins，2013^[4]	澳大利亚	67	65	33/43	41/24	27.9±1.95	27.6±1.97	①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨
Kadivar，2016^[5]	伊朗	27	27	14/13	14/13	31.3^a	31.5^a	②④⑦⑩
Manley，2013^[6]	澳大利亚	152	151	89/63	72/69	27.7±2.1	27.5±1.9	①②③④⑤⑥⑦⑨⑩?
Soonsawad，2017^[7]	泰国	24	25	11/13	17/8	27.5(26, 30)^b	28(25,29.5)^b	①②④⑤⑦⑨⑩?
Yoder，2013^[8]	美国	75	75	未说明	未说明	未说明	未说明	①
康文清，2016^[9]	中国	79	82	未说明	未说明	29.1±1.0	29.2±1.1	①②③④⑥⑦⑨
李恺，2014^[10]	中国	28	31	17/11	16/15	32.6±1.5	32.8±1.7	①②④⑤⑥⑦⑧⑨⑩?
陈佳，2016^[11]	中国	66	63	41/25	40/23	30.2±3.7	30.5±3.3	①②③④⑤⑧⑨⑩

表2 纳入研究的8篇随机对照试验研究文献的质量评价

纳入文献(第一作者，文献发表年)	随机分组方法	分配隐藏	盲法	结果数据的完整性	选择性报告研究结果	其他偏倚	Jadad量表评分(分)
Collins，2013^[4]	计算机随机产生	是	未提及	是	否	无	5
Kadivar，2016^[5]	随机序列	否	未提及	是	否	无	3
Manley，2013^[6]	计算机随机产生	是	未提及	是	否	无	5
Soonsawad，2017^[7]	具体随机分组方法不详	是	未提及	是	否	无	4
Yoder，2013^[8]	计算机随机产生	是	未提及	是	否	无	5
康文清，2016^[9]	具体随机分组方法不详	否	未提及	是	否	无	2
李恺，2014^[10]	随机数字表法	否	未提及	是	否	无	3
陈佳，2016^[11]	具体随机分组方法不详	否	未提及	是	否	无	2

表2 纳入研究的8篇随机对照试验研究文献的质量评价

纳入文献(第一作者，文献发表年)	随机分组方法	分配隐藏	盲法	结果数据的完整性	选择性报告研究结果	其他偏倚	Jadad量表评分(分)
Collins，2013^[4]	计算机随机产生	是	未提及	是	否	无	5
Kadivar，2016^[5]	随机序列	否	未提及	是	否	无	3
Manley，2013^[6]	计算机随机产生	是	未提及	是	否	无	5
Soonsawad，2017^[7]	具体随机分组方法不详	是	未提及	是	否	无	4
Yoder，2013^[8]	计算机随机产生	是	未提及	是	否	无	5
康文清，2016^[9]	具体随机分组方法不详	否	未提及	是	否	无	2
李恺，2014^[10]	随机数字表法	否	未提及	是	否	无	3
陈佳，2016^[11]	具体随机分组方法不详	否	未提及	是	否	无	2

图1 HHHFNC组与NCPAP组早产儿治疗失败率比较的Meta分析

图2 HHHFNC组与NCPAP组早产儿再插管率比较的Meta分析结果

图3 HHHFNC组与NCPAP组早产儿鼻损伤发生率比较的Meta分析结果

图4 HHHFNC组与NCPAP组早产儿气漏发生率比较的Meta分析结果

表3 HHHFNC组与NCPAP组早产儿次要结局评价指标比较的Meta分析结果

结局指标	纳入文献篇数(篇)	HHHFNC组		NCPAP组		效应模型	Meta分析结果
结局指标	纳入文献篇数(篇)	发生例数(例)	总例数(例)	发生例数(例)	总例数(例)	效应模型	OR/SMD(95%CI)	P值
院内死亡率	4^[4,6,9,10]	11	326	12	329	固定	0.93(0.40～2.13)	0.857
BPD发生率	7^{[4,5,6,7,9,10,11]}	123	443	138	444	固定	0.82(0.66～1.11)	0.202
IVH发生率	7^{[4,5,6,7,9,10,11]}	38	443	45	444	固定	0.76(0.46～1.27)	0.299
NEC发生率	6^{[4,6,7,9,10,11]}	26	414	43	417	固定	0.56(0.33～0.95)	0.032
ROP发生率	5^{[5,6,7,10,11]}	57	297	56	306	固定	1.09(0.69～1.73)	0.713
PDA发生率	3^[6,7,11]	99	242	105	239	固定	0.89(0.62～1.28)	0.524
达到全肠道喂养时间	2^[4,10]	—	95	—	96	随机	0.47(－0.35～1.29)	0.264

表3 HHHFNC组与NCPAP组早产儿次要结局评价指标比较的Meta分析结果

结局指标	纳入文献篇数(篇)	HHHFNC组		NCPAP组		效应模型	Meta分析结果
结局指标	纳入文献篇数(篇)	发生例数(例)	总例数(例)	发生例数(例)	总例数(例)	效应模型	OR/SMD(95%CI)	P值
院内死亡率	4^[4,6,9,10]	11	326	12	329	固定	0.93(0.40～2.13)	0.857
BPD发生率	7^{[4,5,6,7,9,10,11]}	123	443	138	444	固定	0.82(0.66～1.11)	0.202
IVH发生率	7^{[4,5,6,7,9,10,11]}	38	443	45	444	固定	0.76(0.46～1.27)	0.299
NEC发生率	6^{[4,6,7,9,10,11]}	26	414	43	417	固定	0.56(0.33～0.95)	0.032
ROP发生率	5^{[5,6,7,10,11]}	57	297	56	306	固定	1.09(0.69～1.73)	0.713
PDA发生率	3^[6,7,11]	99	242	105	239	固定	0.89(0.62～1.28)	0.524
达到全肠道喂养时间	2^[4,10]	—	95	—	96	随机	0.47(－0.35～1.29)	0.264

[1]	Finer NN, Carlo WA, Walsh MC, et al. Early CPAP versus surfactant in extremely preterm infants[J]. N Engl J Med, 2010, 362(21): 1970-1979.
[2]	Chao KY, Chen YL, Tsai LY, et al. The role of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula as noninvasive respiratory support in neonates[J]. Pediatr Neonatol, 2017, 58(4): 295-302.
[3]	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0[EB/OL]. (2011-03) [2018-11-03]. URL
[4]	Collins CL, Holberton JR, Barfield C, et al. A randomized controlled trial to compare heated humidified high-flow nasal cannulae with nasal continuous positive airway pressure postextubation in premature infants[J]. J Pediatr, 2013, 162(5): 949-954.
[5]	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.
[6]	Manley BJ, Owen LS, Doyle LW, et al. High-flow nasal cannulae in very preterm infants after extubation[J]. N Engl J Med, 2013, 369(15): 1425-1433.
[7]	Soonsawad S, Swatesutipun B, Limrungsikul A, et al. Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula for prevention of extubation failure in preterm infants[J]. Indian J Pediatr, 2017, 84(4): 262-266.
[8]	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.
[9]	康文清，许邦礼，刘大鹏，等. 加温湿化高流量鼻导管吸氧在32周以下早产儿撤机中的疗效比较[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志，2016, 18(6): 488-491.
[10]	李恺，王艳丽，叶秀桢，等. 湿化高流量鼻导管通气在早产儿机械通气撤机中的应用研究[J]. 中国新生儿科杂志，2014, 29(5): 306-309.
[11]	陈佳，许芳，张涛，等. 不同辅助通气方式预防超低出生体重早产儿拔管失败的临床研究[J]. 中国新生儿科杂志，2016, 31(2): 86-90.
[12]	Konda KC, Lewis LE, Ramesh Bhat Y, et al. Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for the facilitation of extubation in preterm neonates with respiratory distress[J]. Iran J Neonatol, 2018, 9(2): 14-20.
[13]	Jeon GW.Respiratory support with heated humidified high flow nasal cannula in preterm infants[J]. Korean J Pediatr, 2016, 59(10): 389-394.
[14]	Volsko TA, Fedor K, Amadei J, et al. High flow through a nasal cannula and CPAP effect in a simulated infant model[J]. Respir Care, 2011, 56(12): 1893-1900.
[15]	Garg BD, Bajaj N, Sharma D. To compare the efficacy of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula and continuous positive airway pressure in post-extubation period in VLBW infants[J]. J Trop Pediatr, 2018, 64(4): 262-266.
[16]	Manley BJ, Owen LS. High-flow nasal cannula: mechanisms, evidence and recommendations[J]. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016, 21(3): 139-145.
[17]	Muhsen W, Roy R. A comparative study of HHHFNC and NCPAP in preventing reintubation in extreme preterm infants born at less than 30-week gestation[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2018, 31(23): 3197-3200.

[1]	Siping Zhang, Wei Liu, Pengcheng Ma. Therapeutic effects of lower extremity mild varus alignment after total knee arthroplasty[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 808-817.
[2]	Wanglin Luo, Chuanjun Yang, Guoxing Xu, Jianguo Yu, Weidong Sun, Wenjuan Yan, Zhi Feng. Meta analysis on implantation of different grafting materials in open wedge high tibial osteotomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 818-826.
[3]	Hongxing Chen, Lijun Zhang, Yong Zhang, Hu Li, Chi Zhou, Yinuo Fan. Meta-analysis of effect of external application of traditional Chinese medicine after arthroscopic debridement in knee osteoarthritis[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(05): 663-672.
[4]	Yang Xing, Aishan He, Yan Kang, Zibo Yang, Fangang Meng, Peihui Wu. Meta-analysis of single-bundle reconstruction combining anterolateral reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament[J]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 508-519.
[5]	Wei Yang, Xia Hao, Dongzhen Zhu, Jinbo Zhang, Xuefei Tian, Bin Yao. A meta analysis of the clinical effect of traditional Chinese medicine on burn and scald patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Injury Repair and Wound Healing(Electronic Edition), 2023, 18(05): 419-426.
[6]	Xiongxiong Li, Chan Zhou, Ting Xu, Yu Ren, Jin Shang. Metastasis rate of newly diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasive axillary lymph nodes: A Meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 466-474.
[7]	Zaibo Zhang, Bingyu Wang, Zhikai Jiao, Bibo Tan. Risk factors for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis after gastric cancer surgery: A Meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 475-480.
[8]	Huiming Wu, Renkai Guo, Huiyu Li. Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery for colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(05): 395-400.
[9]	Xian Mo, Chuang Yang. Meta-analysis of risk factors for portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 678-683.
[10]	Wenzhong Duan, Yanxia Bai, Wenting Xu, Hongxia Qi, Zhijian Lyu. Anesthetic effects of sevoflurane and propofol in hepatectomy: a Meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(06): 640-645.
[11]	Hailong Yang, Manjun Deng, Yichen Fan, Mengyu Xu, Fangde Chen, Weihao Wu, Shengyuan Zhang. Risk factors of bile leakage after primary suture of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: a Meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(05): 545-550.
[12]	Hongli Xu, Yulin Yang, Qing Xue, Qian Zhang, Lihong Ma, Zhengang Qiu. Efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave for non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 09(05): 307-314.
[13]	Songfeng Li, Xiyong Li, Xiaohui Bai, Yunlu Wang, Pengfei Han, Hongzhuo Li. Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus tubular microendoscopic for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 09(03): 172-181.
[14]	Xiu Wang, Yiguo Wang. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in treating perianal fistulizing Crohn′s disease: a meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 13(06): 514-519.
[15]	Huiyuan Su, Hongtao Song, Wei Gao, Zhong Wu. Acupuncture for treatment of simple obesity: systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 123-128.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export