High-Flow Nasal Cannula in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 3
Characteristics of the participants.
Authors, year
Age (years)
Gender (male/total)
APACHE II score
Respiratory rates (times/minute)
pH
PaO2 (mmHg) or PaO2/FiO2(mmHg)
PaCO2 (mmHg)
Respiratory support duration (days or hours)
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
HFNC
NIV
RCTs
Jing et al., 2018
77.4 ± 6.8
73.9 ± 6.9
?/22
?/20
11.8 ± 3.1
10.42.5
18.3 ± 3.5
19.2 ± 4.1
7.46 ± 0.04
7.44 ± 0.06
235.8 ± 77.0
250.8 ± 75.8
52.4 ± 6.4
53.7 ± 8.6
2.73 ± 1.95
4.07 ± 4.40
Yu et al., 2019
62.4 ± 10.1
63.5 ± 11.2
24/36
21/36
28.6 ± 2.8
28.5 ± 3.4
32 ± 4.4
33 ± 4.3
7.26 ± 0.03
7.26 ± 0.03
56.84 ± 2.77
56.92 ± 2.89
73.56 ± 6.9
73.5 ± 6.23
—
—
Wang et al., 2019
71.26 ± 7.39
72.85 ± 6.65
13/23
12/20
18.35 ± 2.19
18.9 ± 2.59
30.91 ± 2.13
30.35 ± 2.68
7.23 ± 0.19
7.24 ± 0.02
57.17 ± 5.68
59.55 ± 6.48
67.13 ± 4.25
66.05 ± 3.03
7.96 ± 1.72
6.8 ± 1.26
Cong et al., 2019
66.91 ± 7.38
67.88 ± 8.38
48/84
50/48
—
—
—
—
7.25 ± 0.08
7.27 ± 0.09
53.10 ± 16.22
54.08 ± 15.33
72.11 ± 16.31
72.91 ± 16.41
10.02 ± 5.11
9.55 ± 4.78
Tan et al, 2020
68.4 ± 9.3
71.4 ± 7.8
27/44
23/42
14 (11–18.8)
13 (10.8–16)
18 (16–23)
21 (16–26)
7.48 (7.42–7.51)
7.45 (7.40–7.49)
239.2 ± 47.0
229.3 ± 42.0
50.5 (48–57.8)
53 (48.8–61.3)
83.9 ± 33.1
70.9 ± 30.6
Papachatzakis et al., 2020
76 ± 13.4
78.1 ± 8.1
10/20
9/20
21.6 ± 8.9
19.6 ± 6.1
—
—
7.1 ± 0.1
7.1 ± 0.1
76.4 ± 28.9
65.2 ± 12.9
60.4 ± 9.9
62.1 ± 10.3
2 ± 1
2 ± 9
Cohort studies
Lee et al., 2018
73 (68–79)
77 (71–70)
28/44
29/44
—
—
24 (20–28)
24 (22–29)
7.32 ± 0.28
7.31 ± 0.29
134.8 ± 7.3
134.5 ± 7.5
56.4 ± 10.1
52.6 ± 8.8
7 (5–10)
8 (6–10)
Sun et al., 2019
73.2 ± 9.0
70.4 ± 7.4
24/39
30/43
18.4 ± 2.7
17.3 ± 3.4
28.1 ± 3.3
27.0 ± 3.5
7.31 (7.29–7.33)
7.30 (7.28–7.32)
138.2 ± 6.6
140 ± 6.6
56 (53–62)
59 (55–62)
5 (4–7)
6 (5–8)
distinguishes the two indicators of the variable. For example, “day” was chosen by Jing et al. (the first RCT in the table) in their study to measure the respiratory support duration, while Tan et al. (the fifth RCT in the table) prefer “hours” to be the measurement.
