key: cord-0954902-wklv676s
authors: Xu, Dong-yang; Dai, Bing; Tan, Wei; Zhao, Hong-wen; Wang, Wei; Kang, Jian
title: Effectiveness of the use of a high-flow nasal cannula to treat COVID-19 patients and risk factors for failure: a meta-analysis
date: 2022-04-25
journal: Ther Adv Respir Dis
DOI: 10.1177/17534666221091931
sha: 2ec37506242f35419bc1fe1307a66c3dd4fca795
doc_id: 954902
cord_uid: wklv676s

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread globally, and many patients with severe cases have received oxygen therapy through a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). OBJECTIVES: We assessed the efficacy of HFNC for treating patients with COVID-19 and risk factors for HFNC failure. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of HFNC in patients with COVID-19 published in English from January 1st, 2020 to August 15th, 2021. The primary aim was to assess intubation, mortality, and failure rates in COVID-19 patients supported by HFNC. Secondary aims were to compare HFNC success and failure groups and to describe the risk factors for HFNC failure. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 2851 patients. The intubation, mortality, and failure rates were 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38–0.51, I(2) = 84%), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.19–0.29, I(2) = 88%), and 0.47 (95% CI: 0.42–0.51, I(2) = 56%), respectively. Compared to the success group, age, body mass index (BMI), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, D-dimer, lactate, heart rate, and respiratory rate were higher and PaO(2), PaO(2)/FiO(2), ROX index (the ratio of SpO(2)/FiO(2) to respiratory rate), ROX index after the initiation of HFNC, and duration of HFNC were lower in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). There were also more smokers and more comorbidities in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) revealed that older age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07, P = 0.02, I(2) = 88%), a higher white blood cell (WBC) count (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01–1.12, P = 0.02, I(2) = 0%), a higher heart rate (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.15–1.76, P < 0.01, I(2) = 0%), and a lower ROX index(OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.95, P = 0.03, I(2) = 93%) after the initiation of HFNC were all significant risk factors for HFNC failure. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC is an effective way of providing respiratory support in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Older age, a higher WBC count, a higher heart rate, and a lower ROX index after the initiation of HFNC are associated with an increased risk of HFNC failure.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is responsible for COVID-19, spread rapidly worldwide and created a pandemic in 2019. 1 The high infectivity and exponential spread of SARS-CoV-2, coupled with its potential to develop rapidly into acute respiratory distress syndrome, led to high mortality. [2] [3] [4] About 15-30% of COVID-19 patients experienced hypoxemia and progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome. 3 Noninvasive respiratory support, including the use of a highflow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV), is now widely given to these patients.

HFNC is an oxygen supply system capable of delivering up to 100% humidified and heated oxygen at a flow rate of up to 60-100 liters per minute. 5, 6 It is useful for treating hypoxemic respiratory failure. It may lead to less treatment failure compared to the use of conventional oxygen therapy (COT), 7 and it is better tolerated than NIV. 8 Previous studies, mainly retrospective and with small sample sizes, suggest potential benefits associated with the use of HFNC in treating respiratory failure due to COVID-19. [9] [10] [11] However, there is a lack of large-sample research on the effectiveness of HFNC for treating COVID-19. Moreover, despite their advantages, the failure rate of noninvasive treatments in patients with COVID-19 is high, and there is a concern that poor patient selection or prolonged trials of HFNC may result in worse clinical outcomes. 12, 13 Therefore, the main aim of this study was to summarize the characteristics of patients using HFNC and to assess its efficacy. We also compare the characteristics of patients in HFNC success and failure groups and describe risk factors for HFNC failure.

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of RCTs and observational studies of HFNC in patients with COVID-19 published in English from January 1st, 2020 to August 15th, 2021. We searched for ( 'HFNC' or 'high-flow nasal cannula' or 'high-flow oxygen therapy' or 'high-flow nasal oxygen') and ( 'COVID-19' or 'coronavirus disease 2019'). In addition, we carefully evaluated the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for other relevant studies.

Our inclusion criteria were as follows: i) cohort study, case-control study, or RCT; ii) the inclusion of patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; iii) HFNC used to relieve hypoxemia prior to (invasive or noninvasive) mechanical ventilation; and iv) at least one of the following outcomes: mortality rate, intubation rate, escalation rate (to NIV or invasive mechanical ventilation), and characteristics of patients successfully weaned from HFNC and those not successfully weaned.

HFNC failure was defined as the need for NIV or invasive mechanical ventilation and/or death while on HFNC support. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, management, and outcome data were obtained from medical records.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: i) patients did not meet screening criteria; ii) the study focused on pediatric patients; iii) non-English study, commentary, review, full text not available, and/or duplicate publications from a single study; iv) data could not be extracted by statistical methods or non-targeted outcomes; and v) the study reused patient data.

The ultimate decision to include a study was made following a full-text review of the article by two investigators focusing on publication date, study type, study design, and outcomes. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies. Each cohort study was assessed on seven items regarding patient selection, trial design, and measurement of outcomes; each case-control study was assessed on seven other items regarding patient selection, comparability, and exposure. One star was awarded for each quality criterion the study satisfied; the highest quality studies were awarded seven stars. A study was considered of good, normal, and poor quality if it was awarded 6 or 7, 3-5, and 0-2 stars, respectively.

Data and basic information from each study were independently extracted and cross-checked by two investigators for further analysis. regarding intubation, failure, and mortality rates were measured as proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and then pooled and presented in forest plots. Random-effects models were used in cases of obvious heterogeneity. To investigate the risk factors for HFNC failure, we used DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models to pool odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% CIs. Definitions of the same risk factor should have been similar across all included studies, and the results of multivariate analysis were preferentially adopted. Because of the short follow-up period (usually only 1 month), hazard ratios expressed similar meaning to ORs and were therefore pooled together in this meta-analysis.

In each analysis, the heterogeneity between studies was measured with the I 2 statistical index (range: 0-100%), with 25%, 50%, and 75% corresponding to low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Random-effects models were used when obvious heterogeneity existed. Funnel plots, Egger's test, and Begg's test were used to evaluate publication bias. Qualitative data were compared with Z tests. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference.

As depicted in Figure 1 , a total of 1429 records were identified from the search. After excluding duplicates and evaluating the full texts of articles, we identified 25 eligible studies (1 RCT, 12 casecontrol studies, and 12 cohort studies). The search and screening process is described in Figure 1 .

The main characteristics of the articles included in the meta-analysis are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Because only one RCT was included in the metaanalysis, and the remainder of the included studies were cohort and case-control studies, the quality of the literature was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The results are shown in Supplemental Figure S1 . All articles were of PRISMA: preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 4 journals.sagepub.com/home/tar medium quality (⩾3 stars) or higher; eight articles were considered high-quality studies (⩾6 stars). Symmetry funnel plots of intubation and failure rates indicated no obvious publication bias, a finding corroborated by Egger's test (P = 0.79 >|t| and P = 0.59 >|t|), whereas plots of the mortality rate did indicate bias ( Figure 2 ). As shown in Table 5 When reported, the ROX index after the initiation of HFNC was 5.0 ± 2.4, the duration of HFNC was 4.9 ± 5.0 days, and the length of the hospital stay was 19.6 ± 13.6 days.

Differences in demographics and clinical characteristics between patients with a successful outcome on HFNC (success group) and those who experienced HFNC failure (failure group) are summarized in Table 5 . When reported, compared to the HFNC success group, patients in the HFNC failure group had higher age, BMI, SOFA scores, APACHE II scores, D-dimer, lactate, heart rate, and respiratory rate and lower PaO 2 , SpO 2 , PaO 2 / FiO 2 , and duration of HFNC (all Ps < 0.05). Numbers of smokers and patients with diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and malignancy were also higher in the failure group (all Ps < 0.05). The ROX index at admission and the ROX index after the initiation of HFNC also differed significantly between patients in the success and failure groups: 8.3 ± 4.2 versus 6.3 ± 4.6 (P < 0.01) and 6.1 ± 2.7 versus 4.9 ± 2.5 (P < 0.01), respectively. We did not find any differences in the number of male patients, Table 5 . Deng et al. 22 (1) (2) (5) (6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (24) (25) (29) (30) (31) Duan et al. 23 (1) (2) (5) (9) (10) (11) (12) (15) (16) (17) (19) (20) (21) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (29) (30) (31) (32) Franco et al. 24 (1) (2) (4) (5) (9) (11) (12) (13) (14) (21) (25) (29) (30) (31) (32) Garner et al. 25 (

Goury et al. 26 (1) (2) (4) (5) Demoule et al. 21 MD MD HFNC targeted a flow > 50 L/min, which could be reduced in case of poor tolerance.

Deng et al. 22 MD MD HFNC was started from low levels and gradually titrated to 60 L/min for patients without obvious complaint of chest distress or shortness of breath. For patients who were short of breath, the flow rates were commenced at 60 L/min. The goal of oxygen therapy was to maintain the SpO 2 at 93%96%.

Duan et al. 23 Several risk factors for HFNC failure were weighed in some studies, and pooled results are shown in Table 5 and Figure 4 . The pooled ORs revealed that older age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07, P = 0.02, I 2 = 88%), a higher white blood cell (WBC) count (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01-1.12, P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%), and a higher heart rate (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.15-1.76, P < 0.01, I 2 = 0%) were all significant risk factors for HFNC failure. In contrast, a higher ROX index after the initiation of HFNC (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39-0.95, P = 0.03, I 2 = 93%) indicated a lower chance of HFNC failure.

In this meta-analysis based on 2851 patients from 25 studies hospitalized for COVID-19, intubation, mortality, and failure rates were 0.44, 0.23, and 0.47, respectively. Compared to the HFNC success group, patients in the HFNC failure group were older; had higher BMI, SOFA and APACHE II scores, CRP, D-dimer, RR, HR, and lactate; and had lower PaO 2 , SpO 2 , PaO 2 /FiO 2 , baseline ROX index, and ROX index after the initiation of HFNC. There were also more smokers and more comorbidities in the failure group. Pooled ORs showed that older age, a higher WBC count, a higher heart rate, and a lower ROX index after the initiation of HFNC were associated with an increased risk of HFNC failure.

HFNC has several positive physiological and clinical advantages in treating acute respiratory failure. 39 A meta-analysis of nine RCTs of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the pre-COVID-19 era found that HFNC resulted in lower intubation rates without affecting survival. 40 Preliminary data, mainly from case reports and small case series, also point to its potential utility in treating COVID-19. [9] [10] [11] In this study, the failure rate of HFNC in COVID-19 patients was 0.47, and intubation and mortality rates were 0.44 and 0.23, respectively. In one of the largest published studies on the effectiveness of NIV for treating COVID-19, failure and mortality rates were 37.6% and 25%, respectively. 41 One metaanalysis found that 26% of COVID-19 patients experienced NIV failure and required intubation, with intra-hospital mortality of 72%. 42 However, compared to NIV and COT, the effects of HFNC on intubation and mortality are not clear. As few studies in our meta-analysis compared HFNC to COT 16, 34 or NIV, 24,27 we did not compare intubation and mortality rates between HFNC and COT or NIV in patients with COVID-19.

Whether HFNC can benefit COVID-19 patients clinically must be studied further.

The use of HFNC to treat COVID-19 is very controversial. A literature review found that HFNC can reduce the need for intubation in patients with COVID-19 and decrease the length of stay in the intensive care unit and complications related to mechanical ventilation. 43 Some guidelines recommend HFNC over COT or NIV to treat hypoxia associated with COVID-19. [44] [45] [46] World Health Organization suggest a short trial (about 1 h) of HFNC may be used in selected patients with COVID-19 and mild ARDS, and patient should be in a monitored setting and cared for in case the patient acutely deteriorates or does not improve after a the trial. 47 Besides, there is insufficient evidence to classify HFNC as an aerosol-generating procedure that is associated with transmission of COVID-19. 47 In the studies included in this metaanalysis and in other studies, some measures such as negative-pressure rooms, high-energy particulate accumulator filters, adequate personal protective equipment, and surgical masks may be sufficient to protect staff. 13, 30, 35, 48 Patients at greater risk of HFNC failure are older, have a higher BMI, have higher SOFA and APACHE II scores, have more severe hypoxia, are more likely to be smokers, and have more comorbidities than those who experience successful HFNC. SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting people of all ages, but older people and people with preexisting medical conditions are predisposed to infection and severe forms of COVID-19. 49, 50 The list of comorbidities includes obesity, diabetes, hypertension, lung, liver, and kidney disease, compromised immunity (for cancer patients on chemotherapy, transplant recipients), smoking, and chronic use of steroids. 51 Higher SOFA and APACHE II scores have also been associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. 52 Careful continuous monitoring of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is needed to detect early signs of failure and avoid delays in intubation. The World Health Organization has also pointed out that the oxygenation status of COVID-19 patients on HFNC should be closely monitored to enable timely adjustment of respiratory support.

Using objective criteria when observing patients on HFNC can improve the detection of clinical failure and avoid delays in intubation. Our study suggests that, as in other cases of hypoxemic respiratory failure, 53 the ROX index (defined as the ratio of SpO 2 /FiO 2 to respiratory rate) has high sensitivity in identifying HFNC failure in COVID-19 patients. In a previous study, the ROX index was considered a better predictor of successful HFNC than SpO 2 /FiO 2 or respiratory rate alone when measured 2, 6, or 12 h after the initiation of HFNC in patients with severe community-or hospitalacquired pneumonia. A ROX index ⩾ 4.88 measured within 2-12 h of HFNC was associated with an increased likelihood of successful HFNC in treating nonviral pneumonia. 53, 54 However, Circles indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

journals.sagepub.com/home/tar 11 OR, odd ratio; ROX index, the ratio of SpO2/FiO2 to respiratory rate; SD, standard deviation; SOFA, sequential organ failure assessment; WBC, white blood cell. Table 5 .

because the studies in this meta-analysis measured the ROX index at very different time points, we only used the latest ROX index after the initiation of HFNC in the analysis. As the condition of COVID-19 patients changes quickly, treatment providers should closely monitor changes in the ROX index after the initiation of HFNC. Whether more sensitive indicators such as ROX-HR and mROX 55 are better than ROX for monitoring COVID-19 patients needs to be studied further.

The inflammatory response associated with mortality appears to be dysregulated in response to COVID-19, and this likely drives the high mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. 56 Pooled ORs showed that a higher WBC count was associated with an increased risk of HFNC failure. A previous study found that patients with more severe disease had a higher WBC count. 57 However, we found no difference in inflammatory indices between the failure and success groups (Table 5) , although pooled ORs showed that an increased WBC count was a risk factor for HFNC failure. This contradictory result may be due to the fact that these results came from different studies. Further study may be needed to verify this.

The present study has several limitations. First, our results were based mostly on cohort and casecontrol studies, and the quality of the evidence in the studies was low. The lack of RCTs may have reduced accuracy and increased heterogeneity. Second, as the distribution of resources and recommended guidelines differed in different countries during the COVID-19 epidemic, there was no clear protocol for initiating HFNC. Thus, treatment results depended on the judgment of individual physicians and differences in patient selectivity of HFNC, which may have affected our results. Third, data on biomarkers were incomplete, which reduced the power of the multivariate predictive model. Some important indicators were also incomplete, such as the time of failure and the day of illness, are very important for the failure prediction of HFNC, future research focus on these is needed. Some variables were likely skewed and would best be reported as medians with interquartile ranges and compared using a non-parametric statistical test, but this maybe related to the original data provided by the included study. Finally, we did not examine whether HFNC reduced intubation and mortality rates compared to conventional oxygen therapy or NIV; further studies may be needed. journals.sagepub.com/home/tar 13 HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula; ROX index, the ratio of SpO 2 /FiO 2 to respiratory rate.

Our meta-analysis found an aggregated failure rate of HFNC in COVID-19 patients of 0.47 and intubation and mortality rates of 0.44 and 0.23, respectively. Pooled ORs showed that older age, a higher WBC count, a higher heart rate, and a lower ROX index after the initiation of HFNC were associated with an increased risk of HFNC failure. 

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese center for disease control and prevention

Severe covid-19 pneumonia: pathogenesis and clinical management

The epidemiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome before and after coronavirus Disease

High flow nasal cannula

Humidification in very-high-flow nasal-cannula therapy in an adult lung model

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients

High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation utilization in respiratory failure

High-flow nasal cannula in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen in the ICU as a first-line therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019

Severe Covid-19

Electrical and structural remodeling contribute to atrial fibrillation in type 2 diabetic db/db mice

Highflow, noninvasive ventilation and awake (nonintubation) proning in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with respiratory failure

Covid-19 severe hypoxemic pneumonia: a clinical experience using high-flow nasal oxygen therapy as first-line management

Monitoring of high-flow nasal cannula for SARS-CoV-2 severe pneumonia: less is more, better look at respiratory rate

High flow nasal oxygen therapy to avoid invasive journals.sagepub.com/home/tar mechanical ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: a retrospective study

The utility of high-flow nasal oxygen for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a resource-constrained setting: a multi-centre prospective observational study

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a prospective observational study

Highflow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19: using the ROX index to predict success

High flow nasal cannula oxygenation in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a safe way to avoid endotracheal intubation?

Highflow nasal cannula in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19

Course of illness and outcomes in older COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC: a retrospective analysis

High-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 patients: a multicenter retrospective study in China

Feasibility and clinical impact of out-of-ICU noninvasive respiratory support in patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia

Predictors of failure of high flow nasal cannula failure in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19

Predictive factors associated with high-flow nasal cannula success for COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal oxygen on days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: the HENIVOT randomized clinical trial

Timing of intubation and mortality among critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a single-center cohort study

Application of high-flow nasal cannula in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Clinical experience with high-flow nasal cannulas for coronavirus disease 2019 patients in Japan

A simple nomogram for predicting failure of non-invasive respiratory strategies in adults with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study

Predictors of failure with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure: a multicenter observational study

High-flow nasal cannula for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19

Impact of HFNC application on mortality and intensive care length of stay in acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia

Highflow nasal cannula oxygen therapy to treat patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure consequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection

High-flow nasal oxygen in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

A novel riskstratification models of the high-flow nasal cannula therapy in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure

Prediction of outcome of nasal high flow use during COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

High flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review

High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Noninvasive ventilatory support of patients with COVID-19 outside the intensive care units (WARd-COVID)

Noninvasive respiratory support outside the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus-19 disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

High flow nasal cannula in COVID-19: a literature review

Surviving sepsis campaign: guidelines on the management of critically Ill adults with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society. COVID-19 guidelines

National Institutes of Health. Care of critically ill patients with COVID-19: summary recommendations

World Health Organization. Living guidance for clinical management of COVID-19

High-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 patients: low risk of bio-aerosol dispersion

National age and coresidence patterns shape COVID-19 vulnerability

A brief-review of the risk factors for covid-19 severity

Comorbidity and its Impact on Patients with COVID-19

Multisystem effects of COVID-19: a concise review for practitioners

Predicting success of high-flow nasal cannula in pneumonia patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: the utility of the ROX index

An index combining respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict outcome of nasal high-flow therapy

Early prediction of high flow nasal cannula therapy outcomes using a modified ROX index incorporating heart rate

Factors associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Haematological parameters and outcome in hospitalized patients with covid-19: a developing country experience

Visit SAGE journals online journals.sagepub.com/ home/tar

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This meta-analysis was funded by the Science and Technology Planning Project, Shenyang (21-172-9-12) .

This review protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42021261541).

Wei Tan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-4168

Supplemental material for this article is available online.