Respiratory failure & ventilation
High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for AECOPD with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors' conclusion
Compared with NIV, HFNC was not associated with increased mortality and intubation rate.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with AECOPD and hypercapnic acute respiratory failure
- Participants
- 486 patients · 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
- Comparison
- High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) vs noninvasive ventilation (NIV)
- Outcome
- Rate of tracheal intubation or mortality
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
All-cause mortality and intubation rate
HFNC vs NIVRelative risk (95% CI)
All-cause mortality; no statistically significant difference
0.97(0.56–1.68)
Intubation rate; no statistically significant difference
1.67(0.99–2.83)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment switch rate | 2.60 (1.54–4.38) | |
| Treatment failure rate | 1.64 (1.04–2.60) | |
| 0.20.5125Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation for AECOPD with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Intensive Care. Published 14 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →