Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Cheng-Chiehen_US
dc.contributor.authorLan, Hao-Minen_US
dc.contributor.authorLi, Chao-Juien_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, Tsung-Hanen_US
dc.contributor.authorChen, Wen-Liangen_US
dc.contributor.authorLei, Wei-Yuanen_US
dc.contributor.authorHsieh, Pei-Youen_US
dc.contributor.authorYang, Mei-Chuehen_US
dc.contributor.authorChou, Chu-Chungen_US
dc.contributor.authorWu, Han-Pingen_US
dc.contributor.authorSyue, Yuan-Jhenen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-13T01:12:21Z-
dc.date.available2019-12-13T01:12:21Z-
dc.date.issued2019-10-13en_US
dc.identifier.issn2090-2840en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2130935en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/153201-
dc.description.abstractObjective. To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in emergency departments (EDs). Method. We comprehensively searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) for articles published from database inception to 12 July 2019. This study included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted in EDs and compared HFNC therapy with COT or NIV. The primary outcome was the intubation rate. The secondary outcomes were the mortality rate, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, ED discharge rate, need for escalation, length of ED stay, length of hospital stay, and patient dyspnea and comfort scores. Result. Five RCTs (n = 775) were included. There was a decreasing trend regarding the application of HFNC therapy and the intubation rate, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.26-1.09; p=0.08; I-2 = 0%). We found that compared with patients who underwent COT, those who underwent HFNC therapy had a reduced need for escalation (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.78; p=0.006; I-2 = 0%), reduced dyspnea scores (MD -0.82, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.18), and improved comfort (SMD -0.76 SD, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.51). Compared with the COT group, the HFNC therapy group had a similar mortality rate (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.79-1.99; p=0.34; I-2 = 0%), ICU admission rate (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.58-2.12; p=0.76; I-2 = 0%), ED discharge rate (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.72; p=0.87; I-2 = 0%), length of ED stay (MD 1.66, 95% CI -0.95 to 4.27), and hospital stay (MD 0.9, 95% CI -2.06 to 3.87). Conclusion. Administering HFNC therapy in ARF patients in EDs might decrease the intubation rate compared with COT. In addition, it can decrease the need for escalation, decrease the patient's dyspnea level, and increase the patient's comfort level compared with COT.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleUse High-Flow Nasal Cannula for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1155/2019/2130935en_US
dc.identifier.journalEMERGENCY MEDICINE INTERNATIONALen_US
dc.citation.volume2019en_US
dc.citation.spage0en_US
dc.citation.epage0en_US
dc.contributor.department生物科技學系zh_TW
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Biological Science and Technologyen_US
dc.identifier.wosnumberWOS:000493103300001en_US
dc.citation.woscount0en_US
Appears in Collections:Articles