Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 23, Article number: 476 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Acute heart failure (AHF) is often associated with diffuse insufficiency and arterial hypoxemia, requiring respiratory support for rapid and effective correction. We aimed to compare the effects of high-flow nasal cannula(HFNC) with those of conventional oxygen therapy(COT) or non-invasive ventilation(NIV) on the prognosis of patients with AHF.

Methods

We performed the search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from the inception to August 31, 2023 for relevant studies in English and Chinese. We included controlled studies comparing HFNC with COT or NIV in patients with AHF. Primary outcomes included the intubation rate, respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), and oxygenation status.

Results

From the 1288 original papers identified, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria, and 1333 patients were included. Compared with COT, HFNC reduced the intubation rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14–0.58, P = 0.0005), RR (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.73 95% CI: -0.99 – -0.47, P < 0.00001) and HR (SMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -1.07 – -0.69, P < 0.00001), and hospital stay (SMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -1.76 – -0.12, P = 0.03), and increase arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), (SMD: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.70–1.06, P < 0.00001) and oxygen saturation (SpO2 [%], SMD: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.34–1.06, P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in intubation rate, RR, HR, arterial blood gas parameters, and dyspnea scores between the HFNC and NIV groups. Compared with COT, HFNC effectively reduced the intubation rate and provided greater clinical benefits to patients with AHF. However, there was no significant difference in the clinical prognosis of patients with AHF between the HFNC and NIV groups.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42022365611).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Acute heart failure (AHF) is characterized by reduced myocardial contractility and increased cardiac load, caused by acute hemodynamic abnormalities. AHF results in circulatory congestion, often manifested as acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) and cardiogenic shock (CS) commonly companied by significant hypoxemia requiring appropriate respiratory support [1]. If conventional oxygen therapy (COT), such as nasal cannula or facial mask oxygen therapy, fails, respiratory support is escalated to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation in time. NIV is recommended in treatment guidelines for heart failure patients with severe respiratory distress presenting, or those on long-term mechanical ventilation with a risk of extubation failure [2]. However, NIV use may cause discomfort and dryness in the respiratory mucosa, which is more fragile for respiratory bacterial infection [3, 4]. Furthermore, patients may develop facial pressure sores and poor tolerance, leading to treatment failure. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), a novel oxygen therapy, provides accurate oxygen concentration and constant temperature and humidity of the high-flow gas as an alternative for patients with acute respiratory distress [5]. High-flow gas delivered by HFNC can produce a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) effect [6], which can improve the diffusion function by increasing alveolar pressure and reducing lung exudation. Therefore, HFNC can prevent alveolar collapse owing to its potential PEEP effect and reduce the intubation rate after extubation in critically ill patients. Furthermore, constant temperature and humidity for comfort improve the tolerance of patients to this type of respiratory support [7]. Several studies have demonstrated that HFNC can improve treatment outcomes for AHF [8,9,10]. In addition, the safety and efficacy of HFNC in patients with heart failure have also been confirmed [11], providing a promising treatment option for those with acute respiratory failure caused by AHF. However, no definitive conclusion has been reached regarding the benefits of HFNC compared with those of COT or NIV. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to quantitatively compare the clinical outcomes of HFNC with those of COT or NIV in patients with AHF in recent years. The benefits of HFNC for respiratory support in patients with AHF were quantified by analyzing outcomes such as intubation rate, length of hospital stay, respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2), pH, and oxygen saturation (SpO2 [%]), to provide evidence for clinical treatment selection in AHF.

Materials and methods

We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis based on the Handbook of Systematic Review of Cochrane interventions and the guidelines described in the PRISMA statement [12]. The study was registered with the International Prospective Systems Evaluation Register (PROSPERO: CRD42022365611).

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Study type: randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) Subjects: Adult patients with AHF who required oxygen therapy; (3) Intervention: HFNC was used in the experimental group and conventional oxygen or NIV was used in the control group; (4) Outcome measures: at least one of the following results of treatment escalation to invasive ventilation were reported: intubation rate, the length of hospital stays, RR, HR, MAP, PaO2, PaCO2, pH, SpO2 (%), and dyspnea score ( using a visual analog scale ranging from 1 to 10 to assess the severity of dyspnea) [13]; (5) Studies written in English or Chinese.

Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies that did not involve HFNC, (2) repeated studies, (3) conventional oxygen/NIV was not used in the control group, (4) non-RCT studies, (5) articles that could not provide detailed baseline characteristics, (6) incorrect statistical methods that could not be rectified, (7) studies that could not provide raw data on sample size and results, and (8) studies that are not written in English or Chinese.

Outcome indicators

The primary outcome measure was the change in objective parameters, including respiratory support escalation to invasive ventilation (quantified as the intubation rate), RR, HR and oxygenation status (quantified as arterial blood gas analysis [ABG] parameters, including PaO2, PaCO2, and SpO2 [%]). Secondary outcomes were MAP, pH, length of hospital stay, and dyspnea score of patients. For studies reporting the outcomes of interest at multiple time points, the longest reported follow-up period was included in the main analysis.

Literature retrieval strategy

We performed the search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases from inception to August 31, 2023, for relevant studies in English and Chinese. We developed a sensitive search strategy based on the concepts of [heart failure], [Non-Invasive Ventilation], [Oxygen therapy] and [Nasal high flow oxygen]. Where available, we used validated search strings and supplemented them with MeSH terms and other controlled vocabularies (shown in Supplementary Appendix 1). In addition, the reference lists of the included studies were checked for eligible eligibility. The detailed searching strategy and results are presented in Supplementary Appendix 1.

Trial selection

Two researchers (Liming Yan and Ye Lu) first screened the trials independently. During title and abstract screening, duplicated and non-randomized controlled studies were deleted. Then, through full-text retrieval, the studies that met the inclusion criteria were obtained. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third researcher (Xiaoming Zhou).

Data extraction and Quality Assessment

The data extraction strategy is presented in the Supplementary Appendix 1. A standardized data extraction table was used to extract the literature (Supplementary Table 1).

The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated by two reviewers according to the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs (Supplementary Fig. 1). A modified Jadad scoring system [14] was used to evaluate the quality of the studies (1–3: low quality, 4–7: high quality).

Statistical analysis

The RevMan5.3 statistical software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark), was used for meta-analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous variables, and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI were calculated for continuous variables. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with Chi-squared tests, I2 statistics, and visualized forest plots. The random effects model was used for data with p≤0.05 and I2≥50%, and a subgroup stratified analysis was performed to evaluate the source of heterogeneity.The fixed effect model was used for data with p > 0.05 and I2 < 50%. In the analysis, when two-sided p values < 0.05, the results were considered statistically significant.

Results

Study selection

A total of 1288 articles were initially retrieved. After title and abstract examination, duplication removal, and screening for inclusion/exclusion criteria, 16 studies with a total of 1333 patients were finally selected. There were 668 patients in the HFNC group, 377 patients in the COT group, and 288 patients in the NIV group. A flowchart of the study selection process is shown in Supplementary Fig. 2, and the characteristics of the included studies are shown in Supplementary Table 1.

Quality evaluation of the included studies

Due to the uniqueness of the implementation procedure for the intervention and control measures in this study, double-anonymizing the subjects and implementers was challenging; therefore, implementation bias might exist. The risk of bias is shown in Supplementary Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 3. In the sensitivity analysis, for research indicators containing more than 5 articles, we used R 4.4.4 in the sensitivity analysis to exclude each included study, and subsequently, the effect sizes were pooled. After excluding the studies with high heterogeneity, the results remained robust and did not affect the final conclusions. Details of the sensitivity analysis and funnel plots are provided in Supplementary Appendix 2.

Meta-analysis outcome indicators

Intubation

Five studies revealed that the intubation rate of the HFNC group was significantly lower than that of the COT group (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14–0.58, P = 0.0005, I2 = 0%; Fig. 1a).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Comparison of intubation rates. a High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT). b HFNC versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CI confidence interval, M-H Mantel-Haenszel

Full size image

Three studies showed that the intubation rate in the HFNC group was not significantly different from that in the NIV group (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.54–2.39, P = 0.75, I2 = 0%; Fig. 1b).

RR

Eight studies showed that RR of the HFNC group was significantly lower than that of the COT group (SMD: -0.73 95% CI: -0.99 – -0.47, P < 0.00001, I2 = 61%; Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of RR. a High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT). b HFNC versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CI confidence interval, IV Inverse variance

Full size image

Six studies showed that the RR of the HFNC and NIV groups were not significantly different (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.88–0.45, P = 0.52, I2 = 90%; Fig. 2b).

PaO2

Seven studies showed that PaO2 in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that in the COT group (SMD: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.70–1.06, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%; Fig. 3a).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of PaO2. a High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT). b HFNC versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CI confidence interval, IV Inverse variance

Full size image

Six studies showed no significant difference in PaO2 between the HFNC and NIV groups. (SMD: 0.33, 95% CI: -0.11–0.78, P = 0.14, I2 = 78%; Fig. 3b).

PaCO2

Seven studies showed no significant difference in PaCO2 between the HFNC and COT groups (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.54–0.35, P = 0.67, I2 = 85%; Fig. 4a).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Comparison of PaCO2 and SpO2 (%). a High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT). b HFNC versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). c Comparison of SpO2 (%) in patients who received HFNC compared to COT. CI confidence interval, IV Inverse variance

Full size image

Six studies showed no significant difference in PaCO2 between the HFNC and NIV groups (SMD: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.30–0.07, P = 0.21, I2 = 42%; Fig. 4b).

SpO2 (%)

Five studies showed that SpO2 in the HFNC group was significantly higher than that in the COT group (SMD: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.34–1.06, P = 0.0001, I2 = 72%; Fig. 4c).

HR

Six studies showed that the HR of the HFNC group was significantly lower than that of the COT group (SMD: -0.88, 95% CI: -1.07 – -0.69, P < 0.00001, I2 = 43%; Fig. 5a).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of HR. a High-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNC) versus conventional oxygen therapy (COT). b HFNC versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CI confidence interval, IV Inverse variance

Full size image

Five studies showed no significant difference in HR between the HFNC and NIV groups (SMD: 0.06, 95% CI: -0.15–0.27, P = 0.56, I2 = 40%; Fig. 5b).

MAP

Three studies showed no significant difference in MAP between the HFNC and COT groups (SMD: -0.26, 95% CI: -0.87–0.36, P = 0.42, I2 = 79%; Supplementary Fig. 4a).

Plasma pH

Three studies showed no significant differences in pH between the HFNC and COT groups (SMD: 0.00, 95% CI: -0.29–0.29, P = 1.00, I2 = 0%; Supplementary Fig. 4b).

Four studies showed no significant difference in pH between the HFNC and NIV groups (SMD: 0.66, 95% CI: -0.50–1.82, P = 0.27, I2 = 94%; Supplementary Fig. 4c).

The total length of stay

Four studies showed a significant difference in the total length of hospital stay between the HFNC and the COT groups (SMD: -0.94, 95% CI: -1.76 – -0.12, P = 0.03, I2 = 93%; Supplementary Fig. 5a).

Dyspnea scores

Four studies showed no significant difference in dyspnea scores between the HFNC and the NIV group (SMD: -1.09, 95% CI: -2.33–0.15, P = 0.08 I2 = 96%; Supplementary Fig. 5b).

PaO2/FiO2

Four studies showed no significant difference in PaO2/FiO2 between the HFNC and the NIV groups (SMD: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.32–0.12, P = 0.38, I2 = 0%; Supplementary Fig. 6).

Subgroup analyses

Subgroup analysis was performed according to the different end times of the outcomes (1-h treatment vs. 24-h treatment between the HFNC and the COT group; less than 24-h treatment vs. no less than 24-h treatment between the HFNC and the NIV group). Subgroup analysis showed that in the studies comparing HFNC and NIV, the duration of treatment was the source of RR heterogeneity (P-interaction = 0.002, I2 = 89.1%; Supplementary Fig. 7), PaO2 heterogeneity (P-interaction = 0.008, I2 = 85.6%; Supplementary Fig. 8) and HR heterogeneity (P-interaction = 0.04, I2 = 76.8%; Supplementary Fig. 9). When comparing HFNC and COT, the subgroup analysis showed that COT had a significant increase in length of stay after 24-hour treatment (P-interaction = 0.0008, I2 = 91.1%; Supplementary Fig. 10). However, the other outcomes showed no significant subgroup effects.

Additionally, another subgroup analysis was performed based on the different NIV ventilation models (CPAP, BIPAP and others). Results showed that in the studies comparing HFNC and NIV, different NIV ventilation models was the source of pH heterogeneity (P-interaction < 0.00001, I2 = 96.1%; Supplementary Fig. 11) and dyspnea scores heterogeneity (P-interaction < 0.00001, I2 = 93.3%; Supplementary Fig. 12). No significant subgroup effects were observed in other outcomes.

Finally, subgroup analysis was conducted in accordance with the various NIV delivery method (helmet or face mask). In the review of the included literature, three studies (Liu SX 2022, Marjanovic N 2020, Haywood ST 2019) mentioned the use of face mask, only one (Osman A 2021) mentioned the use of helmet, and the rest of the studies did not specify how NIV was delivered. According to the analysis by stratification with HFNC versus helmet or versus face mask, the results indicated that different NIV delivery method was the source of RR heterogeneity (P-interaction = 0.008, I2 = 79.2%; Supplementary Fig. 13) and pH heterogeneity (P-interaction < 0.00001, I2 = 95.7%; Supplementary Fig. 14).

Discussion

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of HFNC, COT, and NIV in adult patients with AHF, highlighting the positive impact of HFNC therapy. Our study primarily demonstrated that compared to COT, HFNC treatment significantly improved the oxygenation status, as indicated by increased PaO2 and SpO2 levels. Consequently, HFNC therapy reduced the intubation rate and RR in patients with AHF. Additionally, HFNC significantly improved HR, and decreased hospitalization duration with the stabilization of AHF. HFNC produces positive pressure within the nasopharyngeal space, which is appropriate for recruiting collapsed alveoli or increasing the lung volume (PEEP effect) despite its relatively low pressure compared with closed system [15]; this can elevate intrathoracic pressure, decrease venous return, diminish cardiac preload [16], and thus improve the hemodynamic profile of individuals suffering from AHF [17]. Furthermore, this is also the physiological basis for HFNC being better than COT in improving oxygenation status in patients with AHF. HFNC can maintain sufficient oxygenation by improving the respiratory load and gas exchange in cardiogenic pulmonary edema [18]. With a similar PEEP effect, HFNC can benefit patients with NYHA class III chronic heart failure by reducing the collapse of the inferior vena cava and the amount of blood returned to the heart [19]. In addition, HFNC is capable of delivering a substantial flow of oxygen subsequent to the processes of heating and humidification, which has the potential to alleviate the inspiratory force and the work of breathing [20]. Another potential advantage of HFNC over COT is its fast effectiveness, as some studies have suggested that beneficial effects could be achieved by applying HFNC before 30 min [8, 21]. However, in the comparison of HFNC between COT, most of the included studies focused on changes in outcomes from 60-minute to 24-hour. Thus, the subgroup analysis according to the different time dividing line comparing objective indices of respiratory distress (RR, PaO2, PaCO2 and SpO2) showed no significant differences. Based on the findings derived from subgroup analysis, it was not feasible to draw a definitive conclusion on the superiority of the earlier beneficial effects of the application (< 1 h) of HFNC over COT.

In spite of the aforementioned superiority, when compared with COT, HFNC presented no obvious advantage in the changes of PaCO2. This result is consistent with the dual role of HFNC in the acute exacerbation of COPD with mild or moderate-to-severe hypercapnia [22]. Setting a flow rate > 40 L/min with HFNC can improve the dynamic lung compliance [23]. Therefore, the use of HFNC can wash out carbon dioxide in anatomical dead space ventilation, resulting in a rapid reduction in PaCO2 [24, 25]. However, in a systemic review targeting at the application of HFNC in AECOPD [25], HFNC reduced the work of breathing compared with COT, but keep PaCO2 unmodified, while oxygenation slightly deteriorates as opposed to NIV. Dong et al [21] suggested that an improved PaCO2 between 0 and 30 min was more effective than COT. However, the difference in PaCO2 between the two groups was eliminated 30 min later. The outcome timepoints selected in our study were 1 and 24 h, which might have missed the time when PaCO2 was statistically significant. Moreover, AHF often manifested as decreased PO2 without hypercapnia; thus, the statistical difference in PCO2 was not significant after either HFNC or COT. Future studies are needed to evaluate the optimal time for HFNC to reduce PaCO2 in order to maximize the effectiveness of HFNC.

Other outcomes were also explored in some of the included studies. A significant decrease in lactate levels was observed at 2 h in the HFNC group, indicating that HFNC provided more efficient tissue and cell oxygenation [10]. A prospective, randomized, controlled study of patients with acute pulmonary edema demonstrated that HFNC showed better improvement in the lactate clearance rate and objective ABG parameters over time than COT [21]. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP have important value in the early detection, risk classification, and prognostic evaluation of heart failure. However, there were too few relevant studies for statistical analysis. One study observed that after 24 h of treatment, N-terminal pro-BNP levels were significantly lower in the HFNC group than in the mask oxygenation group [26].

The use of NIV has been strongly recommended as the initial therapeutic approach for managing acute hypoxia and dyspnea in patients with AHF, as it has the ability to generate significantly higher gas flow rates and positive airway pressure [27, 28]. In our meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in intubation rate, HR, RR, PaO2, PaCO2, pH, dyspnea score, and PaO2 /FiO2 between HFNC and NIV. Thus, HFNC therapy could potentially serve as an alternative approach for individuals diagnosed with heart failure. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the different outcome timepoints (≤ 24-h treatment vs. > 24-h treatment between the HFNC and the NIV groups). Subgroup analysis results suggested that NIV reduced RR more significantly when treated for less than 24 h, whereas HFNC reduced RR and increased PaO2 more significantly when treated for no less than 24 h. Meanwhile, different treatment timepoints also affected the heterogeneity of heart rate. The different performance of HFNC and NIV based on different timepoints might due to the relatively low and unstable pressure produced by HFNC [15, 16]. HFNC showed its advantages in reducing RR and increasing PaO2 with prolonged treatment. Additionally, HFNC therapy exhibits superior patient compliance compared to the intermittent application of NIV [28, 29]. The continuous use of HFNC therapy may guarantee an ample duration of treatment. Based on our preliminary findings, HFNC therapy could potentially serve as an alternative approach for individuals diagnosed with heart failure. However, the specific scope of its application requires further exploration. One study suggested that after 24-hour of HFNC treatment, a PaCO2 > 59 mmHg can increase the risk of HFNC failure [30].

Finally, we carried out subgroup analysis based on different NIV ventilation and interface or delivery methods. In our review, three studies (Liu SX 2022 [31], Marjanovic N 2020 [9], Haywood ST 2019 [32]) mentioned the use of face mask, only one (Osman A 2021 [27]) mentioned the use of helmet, and the rest of the studies did not specify how NIV was delivered. Most of the results had no subgroup effect. This could be attributed to the limited number and incomplete information of research included in this analysis. Several of the included studies lacked explicit details regarding NIV delivery methods. Indeed, studies [33,34,35,36] from several investigators in the field of acute hypoxic respiratory failure indicate that the type of interface and the method of delivering NIV may influence patient outcomes. In future studies, more information needs to be collected about NIV delivery methods and ventilation patterns to determine which methods lead to better clinical outcomes for patients. Additionally, whether HFNC is appropriate for hypercapnia heart failure is still controversial. Therefore, further studies on the roles of HFNC and NIV in AHF are required.

This analysis has some limitations. First, the methods of oxygen supplementation by COT included in the studies were not uniform, including mask, nasal catheter, nasal obstruction, and venturi mask. Since there are differences in HFNC flow settings and the flow range is wide, it was difficult to conduct subgroup analysis. Second, the sample sizes of some of the included studies were insufficient. The characteristics of the intervention also prevented the researchers from using appropriate blinding, and the quality of the included studies was varied. Additionally, FiO2 in the included studies were not recorded in detail, because the titration of oxygenation is dynamic in clinical practice, and the oxygenation target and clinical setting of HFNC or NIV in different studies in different studies varied. Finally, none of the included studies mentioned the effect of delayed intubation on increased mortality, which reflected the neglect of this phenomenon by researchers in the field. We call for future studies to determine the effect of delayed intubation on mortality in patients with heart failure under different oxygen therapy modalities.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that compared with COT, HFNC effectively reduced the intubation rate and provided significant clinical benefits to patients with AHF. Additionally, there is no significant difference between HFNC and NIV in the clinical prognosis of AHF, with no definite conclusion regarding the superiority of one to the other. More RCTs with improved design and larger sample sizes are required to evaluate the clinical benefits of HFNC and NIV in patients with AHF, particularly those with different disease severity and underlying comorbidities, to determine the most applicable patient population for HFNC and NIV and to utilize their advantages accordingly.

Data Availability

Raw data were available from the cited articles. In addition, the data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article and Supplementary Material files.

Abbreviations

AHF:

Acute heart failure

HFNC:

high-flow nasal cannula

NIV:

non-invasive ventilation

RR:

respiratory rate

HR:

heart rate

OR:

odds ratio

SMD:

standardized mean difference

PaO2 :

arterial oxygen partial pressure

PaCO2 :

arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure

SpO2 :

oxygen saturation

MAP:

mean arterial pressure

ACPE:

acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema

CS:

cardiogenic shock

COT:

conventional oxygen therapy

PEEP:

positive end-expiratory pressure

RCTs:

randomized controlled trials

ABG:

arterial blood gas

CI:

confidence intervals

References

  1. Arrigo M, Jessup M, Mullens W, Reza N, Shah AM, Sliwa K, Mebazaa A. Acute Heart Failure. Nat Reviews Disease Primers. 2020;6(1):16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JG, Coats AJ, Falk V, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic Heart Failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(8):891–975.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu Q, Xiang G, Song J, Xie L, Wu X, Hao S, Wu X, Liu Z, Li S. Effects of non-invasive ventilation in subjects undergoing cardiac Surgery on length of hospital stay and cardiac-pulmonary Complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Disease. 2020;12(4):1507–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carron M, Freo U, BaHammam AS, Dellweg D, Guarracino F, Cosentini R, Feltracco P, Vianello A, Ori C, Esquinas A. Complications of non-invasive ventilation techniques: a comprehensive qualitative review of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(6):896–914.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nishimura M. High-Flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults: physiological benefits, indication, clinical benefits, and adverse effects. Respir Care. 2016;61(4):529–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Okuda M, Tanaka N, Naito K, Kumada T, Fukuda K, Kato Y, Kido Y, Okuda Y, Nohara R. Evaluation by various methods of the physiological mechanism of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in healthy volunteers. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2017;4(1):e000200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rochwerg B, Granton D, Wang DX, Helviz Y, Einav S, Frat JP, Mekontso-Dessap A, Schreiber A, Azoulay E, Mercat A, et al. High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(5):563–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Makdee O, Monsomboon A, Surabenjawong U, Praphruetkit N, Chaisirin W, Chakorn T, Permpikul C, Thiravit P, Nakornchai T. High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in Emergency Department patients with Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Annals of emergency medicine 2017, 70(4):465–472e462.

  9. Marjanovic N, Flacher A, Drouet L, Gouhinec AL, Said H, Vigneau JF, Chollet B, Lefebvre S, Sebbane M. High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Early Emergency Department Management of Acute Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure due to Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema. Respir Care. 2020;65(9):1241–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Şener K, Çalış M, Köseoğlu Z, Sarı S, Polat M, Üzücek DM, Yolcu S. Comparison of high-flow oxygen treatment and standard oxygen treatment in patients with hypertensive Pulmonary Edema. Anatol J Cardiol. 2020;24(4):260–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Carratalá JM, Díaz Lobato S, Brouzet B, Más-Serrano P, Espinosa B, Llorens P. Efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with acute Heart Failure. Emergencias. 2018;30(6):395–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aitken RC. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1969, 62(10):989–993.

  14. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roca O, Riera J, Torres F, Masclans JR. High-flow oxygen therapy in acute Respiratory Failure. Respir Care. 2010;55(4):408–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishimura M. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults. J Intensive Care. 2015;3(1):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Carratalá Perales JM, Llorens P, Brouzet B, Albert Jiménez AR, Fernández-Cañadas JM, Carbajosa Dalmau J. Martínez Beloqui E, Ramos Forner S: High-Flow therapy via nasal cannula in acute Heart Failure. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2011;64(8):723–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fraser JF, Spooner AJ, Dunster KR, Anstey CM, Corley A. Nasal high flow oxygen therapy in patients with COPD reduces respiratory rate and tissue carbon dioxide while increasing tidal and end-expiratory lung volumes: a randomised crossover trial. Thorax. 2016;71(8):759–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roca O, Pérez-Terán P, Masclans JR, Pérez L, Galve E, Evangelista A, Rello J. Patients with New York Heart Association class III Heart Failure may benefit with high flow nasal cannula supportive therapy: high flow nasal cannula in Heart Failure. J Crit Care. 2013;28(5):741–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vargas F, Saint-Leger M, Boyer A, Bui NH, Hilbert G. Physiologic effects of High-Flow nasal cannula oxygen in critical care subjects. Respir Care. 2015;60(10):1369–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ko DR, Beom J, Lee HS, You JS, Chung HS, Chung SP. Benefits of High-Flow nasal cannula therapy for Acute Pulmonary Edema in patients with Heart Failure in the Emergency Department: a prospective Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1937.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Avdeev SN, Yaroshetskiy AI, Nuralieva GS, Avdeev IS, Shmidt AE. High–flow nasal cannula is not more effective than conventional oxygen therapy for acute exacerbation of COPD with mild hypercapnia: we are not sure. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mauri T, Turrini C, Eronia N, Grasselli G, Volta CA, Bellani G, Pesenti A. Physiologic effects of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(9):1207–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sivieri EM, Foglia EE, Abbasi S. Carbon dioxide washout during high flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP support: an in vitro study. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2017;52(6):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pisani L, Astuto M, Prediletto I, Longhini F. High flow through nasal cannula in exacerbated COPD patients: a systematic review. Pulmonology. 2019;25(6):348–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Han QY, Xian SF, Yu J, et al. Intranasal high-flow oxygen therapy in patients with acute Heart Failure and hypoxemia. J Xinjiang Med Univ. 2020;43(05):620–3.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Osman A, Via G, Sallehuddin RM, Ahmad AH, Fei SK, Azil A, Mojoli F, Fong CP, Tavazzi G. Helmet continuous positive airway pressure vs. high flow nasal cannula oxygen in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc care. 2021;10(10):1103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang S, He Y, Liu S, Zhang Y. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy but not to non-invasive mechanical ventilation in reducing intubation rate in hypoxia and dyspnea due to acute Heart Failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2023;136(4):479–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cortegiani A, Crimi C, Noto A, Helviz Y, Giarratano A, Gregoretti C, Einav S. Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on dyspnea, comfort, and respiratory rate. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):201.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Li XY, Tang X, Wang R, Yuan X, Zhao Y, Wang L, Li HC, Chu HW, Li J, Mao WP, et al. High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Acute compensated Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: a Randomized, Controlled Trial. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2020;15:3051–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Liu SX, Ye ZL, Mu XW, Ni HB, Zhang ZH, Zuo XR, et al. A multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation after extubation in patients with acute Heart Failure [J]. Chin J Clin Research. 2022;35(04):462–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Haywood ST, Whittle JS, Volakis LI, Dungan G 2nd, Bublewicz M, Kearney J, Ashe T, Miller TL, Doshi P. HVNI vs NIPPV in the treatment of acute decompensated Heart Failure: subgroup analysis of a multi-center trial in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(11):2084–90.

  33. Patel BK, Wolfe KS, Pohlman AS, Hall JB, Kress JP. Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation delivered by Helmet vs Face Mask on the rate of endotracheal intubation in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2435–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Rezoagli E, Villa S, Gatti S, Russotto V, Borgo A, Lucchini A, Foti G, Bellani G. Helmet and face mask for non-invasive respiratory support in patients with acute hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: a retrospective study. J Crit Care. 2021;65:56–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Marti S, Carsin AE, Sampol J, Pallero M, Aldas I, Marin T, Lujan M, Lalmolda C, Sabater G, Bonnin-Vilaplana M, et al. Higher mortality and intubation rate in COVID-19 patients treated with noninvasive ventilation compared with high-flow oxygen or CPAP. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):6527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Pitre T, Zeraatkar D, Kachkovski GV, Leung G, Shligold E, Dowhanik S, Angriman F, Ferreyro BL, Scales DC, Rochwerg B. Noninvasive oxygenation strategies in adult patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: a systematic review and network Meta-analysis. Chest. 2023;164(4):913–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 81900040), Liaoning Edication Division Scientific Foundation (grant number: QN2019014), National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (grant number: 2022-NHLHCRF-LX-01), the Elite Medical Professionals project of China-Japan Friendship Hospital (grant number: ZRJY2021-BJ08), and the Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (grant number: 2020-PT320-001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Fourth Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

    Liming Yan

  2. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China

    Ye Lu

  3. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Center of Respiratory Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China

    Mingming Deng, Qin Zhang, Yiding Bian & Gang Hou

  4. National Center for Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

    Mingming Deng, Qin Zhang, Yiding Bian & Gang Hou

  5. Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

    Mingming Deng, Qin Zhang, Yiding Bian & Gang Hou

  6. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

    Yiding Bian

  7. Respiratory Department, Center for Pulmonary Vascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Xiaoming Zhou

Authors
  1. Liming Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ye Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mingming Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yiding Bian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaoming Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gang Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Liming Yan wrote the main manuscript text. Liming Yan and Ye Lu participated in the acquisition of data, Liming Yan and Xiaoming Zhou took part in manuscript revision. Xiaoming Zhou and Gang Hou conceived the study. Mingming Deng, Qin Zhang, Yiding Bian provided crucial feedback on the study protocol. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoming Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

: Supplementary Appendix 1: Detailed search strategies of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Supplementary Table 1: Data extraction of the included studies. Supplementary Fig 1: Risk of bias of the included studies. Supplementary Fig 2. PRISMA flow chart of search and selection of studies

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, L., Lu, Y., Deng, M. et al. Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med 23, 476 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02782-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02782-0

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us