Effectiveness, Adherence and Safety of Home High Flow Nasal Cannula in Chronic Respiratory Disease and Respiratory Insufficiency: A Systematic Review

• Cristina Jácome ^[1] ; Marta Jácome ^[5] ; Sara Correia ^[6] ; Inês Flores ^[6] ; Patrícia Farinha ^[6] ; Mónica Duarte ^[7] ; João Carlos Winck ^[1] ; Javier Sayas Catalan ^[2] ; Salvador Díaz Lobato ^[8] ; Manel Luján ^[3] ; Cátia Caneiras ^[4]
  1. [1] Universidade Do Porto

     Universidade Do Porto

     Santo Ildefonso, Portugal

     
  2. [2] Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre

     Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre

     Madrid, España

     
  3. [3] Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

     Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

     Barcelona, España

     
  4. [4] Universidade de Lisboa

     Universidade de Lisboa

     Socorro, Portugal

     
  5. [5] Unidade de Saúde Familiar Bracara Augusta, Agrupamento de Centros de Saúde (ACES) do Cávado I – Braga, Braga, Portugal
  6. [6] Resmed Science Centre, Madrid, Spain
  7. [7] Healthcare Department, Nippon Gases Portugal, Vila Franca de Xira, Portugal
  8. [8] HLA Hospital Universitario Moncloa, Universidad Europea, Nippon Gases Healthcare, Madrid, Spain

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Archivos de bronconeumología: Organo oficial de la Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica SEPAR y la Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax ( ALAT ), ISSN 0300-2896, Vol. 60, Nº. 8, 2024, págs. 490-502
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Introduction The effectiveness of home high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for the treatment of chronic respiratory failure in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) has not been summarized. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness, adherence, and safety of HFNC in the long-term treatment of patients with chronic respiratory diseases and respiratory failure.

    Methods A systematic review was conducted. PubMed, Web of science, and SCOPUS were search up to August 2023. Long-term HFNC studies (≥4 weeks) reporting dyspnea; exacerbations, hospitalizations; peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), comfort; patient experience, health-related quality of life or partial pressure of carbon dioxide (paCO2) were included.

    Results Thirteen articles (701 patients) based on 10 studies were selected: randomized control trials (n=3), randomized crossover trials (n=2), crossover (n=3) and retrospective (n=2) studies. COPD (n=6), bronchiectasis (n=2), COPD/bronchiectasis (n=1) and ILD (n=1) were the underlined CRDs. HFNC reduced exacerbations when compared to usual care/home respiratory therapies (n=6). Quality of life outcomes were also in favor of HFNC in patients with COPD and bronchiectasis (n=6). HFNC had significant effects on hospitalizations, paCO2, and lung function. Adherence ranged from 5.2 to 8.6h/day (n=5). Three studies reported no events, 3 non-serious events and 2 no differences compared with other home respiratory therapies.

    Conclusions HFNC seems more effective than usual care or other home respiratory therapies in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life in patients with COPD and bronchiectasis, while presenting good adherence and being safe. Its apparently superior effectiveness needs to be better studied in future real-world pragmatic trials.