High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Du, Yanping; Zhang, Huaping; Ma, Zhiyi; Liu, Jun; Wang, Zhiyong; Lin, Meixia; Ni, Fayu; Li, Xi; Tan, Hui; Tan, Shifan; Chai, Yanling; Zhong, Xiangzhu

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7707010

Canadian Respiratory Journal

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Limitations Conclusion Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 7707010 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7707010

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yanping Du,¹Huaping Zhang,²Zhiyi Ma,³Jun Liu,⁴Zhiyong Wang,⁵Meixia Lin,⁵Fayu Ni,⁶Xi Li,⁷Hui Tan,⁸Shifan Tan,⁹Yanling Chai,¹⁰and Xiangzhu Zhong¹¹

Academic Editor: Jaber Alqahtani

Received12 Oct 2022

Revised29 May 2023

Accepted21 Jun 2023

Published30 Jun 2023

Abstract

Background. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) can be used in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but the effect of HFNC on clinical outcomes in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is still uncertain. Methods. We searched electronic literature databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in hypercapnic patients with AECOPD. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was PaCO₂, PaO_2, and SpO₂. The secondary outcomes were the respiratory rate, mortality, complications, and intubation rate. Results. We included 7 RCTs with a total of 481 patients. There were no significant differences on measures of PaCO₂ (MD = −0.42, 95%CI −3.60 to 2.75, Z = 0.26, and = 0.79), PaO₂ (MD = −1.36, 95%CI −4.69 to 1.97, Z = 0.80, and = 0.42), and SpO₂ (MD = −0.78, 95%CI −1.67 to 0.11, Z = 1.72, = 0.08) between the HFNC group and the NIV group. There was no significant difference in measures of the mortality and intubation rate between the HFNC group (OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.69, Z = 0.76, and = 0.44) and the NIV group (OR = 2.38, 95%CI 0.49 to 11.50, Z = 1.08, and = 0.28), respectively. But the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group (MD = −1.13, 95%CI −2.13 to −0.14, Z = 2.23, and = 0.03), and fewer complications were found in the HFNC group (OR = 0.26, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.47, Z = 4.46, and < 0.00001). Conclusion. NIV was noninferior to HFNC in decreasing PaCO₂ and increasing PaO₂ and SpO₂. Similarly, the mortality and intubation rate was similar among the two groups. The respiratory rate and complications were inferior in the AECOPD group treated with HFNC.

1. Introduction

The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a high-concentration oxygen technique that reliably achieves a FiO₂ as high as 100%. HFNC is more likely to benefit patients with severe symptoms who need high-concentration oxygen rather than patients requiring low oxygen flow rates [1]. So, HFNC is more frequently used in severe acute respiratory failure patients who are at high risk of intubation. But for hypercapnic respiratory failure secondary to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), the standard of care is noninvasive ventilation (NIV) [2]. In some patients, NIV is sometimes difficult to tolerate. Especially younger patients with breathing frequency and a high heart rate may more frequently experience NIV intolerance [3]. There is a need for providing another treatment option that is both easy to administer and well tolerated for hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. The benefits of HFNC include providing oxygen at high flows with an optimal degree of heat, carbon dioxide washout of upper airways by providing airflows 30−60 L/min, and enhanced secretion clearance through the provision of reliable humidification [4]. In one investigation with COPD patients treated for home HFNC in a crossover clinical trial, HFNC with the titration of 20 L/min was not inferior to NIV in COPD patients with stable hypercapnia for a lower CO₂ clearance [5]. A meta-analysis in stable hypercapnic COPD patients comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen demonstrated that the addition of HFNC did not increase the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) in these patients [6]. However, the effect of HFNC on clinical outcomes in patients with AECOPD with hypercapnia is still uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes for HFNC with NIV in the AECOPD patients.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategies

We search electronic literature databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC with NIV in hypercapnic patients with AECOPD. A literature search was performed through the following databases: Cochrane, Google Scholar, MEDLINE database, PubMed, and Embase from inception to July 2022. The following search terms were used: high-flow nasal cannula or nasal high-flow therapy or high-flow nasal cannula or high-flow oxygen through nasal cannula or high-flow nasal therapy, non-invasive ventilation or noninvasive ventilation or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, acute exacerbation of obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure or hypercapnic respiratory failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with hypercapnia or COPD exacerbation, and randomized controlled trial or randomized clinical trial.

2.2. Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently evaluated the included studies and extracted data into RevMan 5.3 (review manager: Cochran handbook for systematic reviews). Any disagreement about whether the RCT met the inclusion or exclusion criteria between the two reviewers was resolved by discussing it with a third reviewer. If still more information was required, communication with the authors through Email would be carried out.

2.3. Study Selection

We included RCTs comparing HFNC with NIV in AECOPD patients. The inclusion criteria included (1) randomized control trials, (2) human studies, (3) the comparison between HFNC with NIV in hypercapnic patients with AECOPD was performed in the study, (4) all patients were adults, and (5) if more than one eligible study using the same protocol from the same centre, the study with the longest follow-up was used. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies reported none of these outcomes: PaCO₂, PaO₂, SpO₂, respiratory rate, mortality, complications, and intubation rate. (2) We excluded studies with the baseline pH < 7.30, for most of these patients need invasive ventilation.

2.4. Outcome Measure

The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was PaCO₂, PaO₂, and SpO₂. The secondary outcomes were the respiratory rate, mortality, complications, and intubation rate.

2.5. Quality Assessment

We used the Cochran handbook for systematic reviews of intervention guidelines to assess the risk of bias. Each study was evaluated for random sequence generation, concealment of allocation sequence, blinding of the participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome, and selective reporting. Also, they were classified by two authors as having a high risk of bias and unclear risk of bias or a low risk of bias based on the Cochrane tool.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the meta-analysis was done using Cochrane systemic review software RevMan 5.3. We used the Mann–Whitney U test to help us verify the hypothesis and rendered statistical significance as a value and a Z value < 0.05. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes in each included study. The I² value was used to assess statistical heterogeneity. If the I² value ≤ 50% was considered as having no statistical heterogeneity, a fixed effects model was used to estimate the overall summary effect sizes. Otherwise, we used a random effects model. And subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis would be carried out.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

The search algorithm identified 104 records. 92 records were identified from electronic databases and 12 records from reference lists. After deduplication, 26 records were excluded. 78 records were screened. 46 records were excluded by reading the abstracts for not about acute exacerbation of COPD (n = 18), not RCT (n = 11), nonhuman studies (n = 5), and retrospective studies (n = 12). 32 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 25 full-text articles were excluded for reasons. 9 articles were excluded for outcomes that have not met this review, 10 articles were excluded for lack of essential data, and 6 articles were excluded for not adults. 7 articles were included in the final meta-analysis [7–13] Figure 1.

3.2. Included Studies

We included 7 RCTs with a total of 481 patients. All included studies had been published and is shown in Table 1.

3.3. Quality Assessment

The risk of bias about the methodological quality of the included studies are elaborated and summarized, respectively, in Figures 2 and 3. Due to the nature of respiratory support management, blinding the participants is not possible.

3.4. Heterogeneity

No statistical heterogeneity was found between the HFNC and NIV groups in PaO₂ (I² = 0%, chi = 1.21, and = 0.55), SpO₂ (I² = 18%, chi = 2.44, and = 0.30), respiratory rate (I² = 10%, chi = 4.45, and = 0.35), mortality (I² = 0%, chi = 1.04, and = 0.79), and complications (I² = 0%, chi = 1.90, and = 0.39); so, a fix effects model had been used. Statistical heterogeneity was found between the HFNC and NIV groups in PaCO₂ (I² = 56% chi = 9.13, and = 0.06) and the intubation rate (I² = 51% chi = 4.12, and = 0.13); so, a random effects model had been used.

3.5. Effect of the Intervention

3.5.1. The Primary Endpoint

(1) PaCO₂. The primary endpoint is PaCO₂, PaO_2, and SpO₂. “PaCO₂” was reported in five studies. 170 patients in the HFNC group and 177 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the PaCO₂. There was no significant difference in measures of PaCO₂ between the HFNC group and the NIV group (MD = −0.42, 95%CI −3.60 to 2.75, Z = 0.26, and = 0.79), Figure 4.

(2) PaO₂. The “PaO₂” was reported in three studies. 124 patients in the HFNC group and 128 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the PaO₂. There was no significant difference in measures of PaO₂ between the HFNC group and the NIV group (MD = −1.36, 95%CI −4.69 to 1.97, Z = 0.80, and = 0.42), Figure 5.

(3) SpO₂. The “ SpO₂” was reported in three studies. 128 patients in the HFNC group and 128 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the PaO₂. There was no significant difference in measures of SpO₂ between the HFNC group and the NIV group (MD = −0.78, 95%CI −1.67 to 0.11, Z = 1.72, and = 0.08), Figure 6.

3.5.2. The Secondary Endpoint

(1) Respiratory rate. The second endpoint contains three outcomes: respiratory rate, mortality, and complications. First, the respiratory rate was reported in four studies. 110 patients in the HFNC group and 117 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the respiratory rate. The respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group (MD = −1.13, 95%CI −2.13 to −0.14, Z = 2.23, and = 0.03), Figure 7.

(2) Mortality. Second, Mortality was reported in three studies. 86 patients in the HFNC group and 93 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the respiratory rate. There was no significant difference in measures of mortality between the HFNC group and NIV group (OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.69, Z = 0.76, and = 0.44), Figure 8.

(3) Complications. Third, complications were reported in three studies. 148 patients in the HFNC group and 150 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the respiratory rate. Fewer complications were found in the NIV group (OR = 0.26, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.47, Z = 4.46, and < 0.00001), Figure 9.

(4) Intubation rates. Fourth, intubation rates were reported in three studies. 104 patients in the HFNC group and 105 patients in the NIV group were available to compare the respiratory rate. Fewer complications were found in the NIV group (OR = 2.38, 95%CI 0.49 to 11.50, Z = 1.08, and = 0.28), Figure 10.

4. Discussion

The major finding in our meta-analysis was that HFNC is not inferior to NIV (which is the standard of treatment for acute decompensated hypercapnic respiratory failure) in decreasing PaCO₂ and increasing PaO₂ and SpO₂. Similarly, the mortality and intubation rate was similar among the two groups. The respiratory rate and complications were inferior in the AECOPD group treated with HFNC.

NIV is the standard treatment for hypercapnic respiratory acidosis patients according to current guidelines and can significantly reduce mortality and the need for intubation among AECOPD patients with respiratory acidosis. This benefit appears similar for patients with a mild (pH 7.30 to 7.35) and a more severe nature (pH < 7.30) [14]. NIV corrects the mechanism leading to hypercapnia by increasing the tidal volume and by decreasing the work of breathing while reducing CO₂ [15]. Many studies indicated that the early use of NIV in mild AECOPD patients with a partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) >45 mmHg and a pH > 7.25 can effectively alleviate respiratory muscle fatigue. However, intolerability and discomfort have restricted the widespread application of NIV in AECOPD patients [16].

HFNC oxygen therapy is used in hypoxemic respiratory failure patients. But some studies have explored that different flow rates of HFNC resulted in a flow-dependent reduction in PaCO₂ in stable hypercapnic COPD patients [17]. For safety and efficacy, HFNC has not been demonstrated in AECOPD patients. When compared to NIV, HFNC also demonstrated a reduction of the inspiratory muscle effort similar to spontaneous breathing [18]. Recent studies found that the short-term (within 2 h) application of HFNC could effectively decrease PaCO₂. Several mechanisms are involved in the explanation of these results, such as the reduction of the anatomical dead space in the upper airways and inspiratory resistance, which improves alveolar ventilation [19]. The adequate flow and humidified warm gas can attenuate inspiratory resistance and increase expiratory resistance can also reduce the physiological dead space, improve airway clearance, and attenuate the work of breathing, allowing for a higher fraction of minute ventilation to facilitate gas exchange [1]. At the same time, HFNC also increases the tidal volume to a lesser extent than NIV. HFNC improves the washout of the upper airway dead space and generates a low level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) [20]. Other studies found HFNC led to a flow-dependent reduction in PaCO₂, accompanied by an increase in the tidal volume [21]. A recent study found HFNC combined with NIV had a higher degree of comfort in patients with AECOPD, can improve blood gas parameters, and increase patient compliance [22].

HFNC may be better tolerated than NIV. A recent study found blood pressure significantly decreased after using NIV for NIV had more impact on venous return than HFNC [9]. In our meta-analysis, we found that the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower than that in the NIV group. Other studies have explored the physiological effects of HFNC, and HFNC could decrease the neuroventilatory drive and work of breathing in COPD patients [23]. This can explain why the respiratory rate in the HFNC group was lower, and the patients felt more comfortable than the NIV group. We also found that fewer complications were found in the HFNC group. A retrospective study found that there were fewer nursing interventions and skin breakdown episodes reported in the HFNC group compare to the NIV group [24]. Some studies found that more patients needed bronchoscopy for secretion management in the NIV group since the patients on NIV feel uncomfortable and claustrophobic within the secured mask. This may be due to the inconvenience of coughing by taking the mask off. By contrast, the humidifying and heating function of HFNC enables the gas delivered to reach a temperature of 37°C and an absolute humidity of 44 mg H₂O/L, and HFNC can provide optimal humidity, so patients can drink, cough, and talk [25]. For this easy compliance, a subgroup analysis found fewer patients required intubation in the HFNC group than in the NIV group, although this was not a statistically significant finding [26]. But in our meta-analysis, we found complications that were statistically fewer in the HFNC group than in the NIV group.

5. Limitations

This study had two limitations. First, most studies used AIRVO™ 2, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand device except the Cong 2019 study. Also, the NIV device included Philips Respironics BiPAP AVAPS-ST 60 Series, ResMed, Bella Vista, NSW, Australia, and other devices. These different devices can cause bias. Second, due to the nature of respiratory support management, blinding the participants is not possible.

6. Conclusion

NIV was noninferior to HFNC in decreasing PaCO₂ and increasing PaO₂ and SpO₂. Similarly, the mortality and intubation rate was similar among the two groups. The respiratory rate and complications were inferior in the AECOPD group treated with HFNC.

Data Availability

The data used to support this study are available within the article.

Disclosure

Yanping Du, Huaping Zhang, Zhiyi Ma, Liu Jun, Zhiyong Wang, Meixia Lin, Fayu Ni, Xi Li, Hui Tan, Shifan Tan, Yanling Chai, and Xiangzhu Zhong are co-first authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Yanping Du, Huaping Zhang, Zhiyi Ma, Liu Jun, Zhiyong Wang, Meixia Lin, Fayu Ni, Xi Li, Hui Tan, Shifan Tan, Yanling Chai, and Xiangzhu Zhong contributed equally to this work.

References

M. Nishimura, “High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy devices,” Respiratory Care, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 735–742, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. B. Murphy, S. Rehal, G. Arbane et al., “Effect of home noninvasive ventilation with oxygen therapy vs oxygen therapy alone on hospital readmission or death after an acute COPD exacerbation: a randomized clinical trial,” JAMA, vol. 317, no. 21, pp. 2177–2186, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, J. Duan, L. Bai, and L. Zhou, “Noninvasive ventilation intolerance: characteristics, predictors, and outcomes,” Respiratory Care, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 277–284, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Spicuzza and M. Schisano, “High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy as an emerging option for respiratory failure: the present and the future,” Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease, vol. 11, Article ID 204062232092010, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bräunlich, H. J. Seyfarth, and H. Wirtz, “Nasal High-flow versus non-invasive ventilation in stable hypercapnic COPD: a preliminary report,” Multidiscip Respir Med, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 27, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Huang, Y. Du, Z. Ma et al., “High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus conventional oxygen for hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Clinical Research J, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 437–444, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cong, L. Zhou, H. Liu, and J. Wang, “Outcomes of high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, vol. 12, pp. 10863–10867, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
S. McKinstry, J. Singer, J. P. Baarsma, M. Weatherall, R. Beasley, and J. Fingleton, “Nasal high-flow therapy compared with non-invasive ventilation in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled cross-over trial,” Respirology, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1081–1087, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Jing, J. Li, D. Hao et al., “Comparison of high flow nasal cannula with noninvasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with hypercapnia in preventing postextubation respiratory failure: a pilot randomized controlled trial,” Research in Nursing and Health, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 217–225, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Papachatzakis, P. T. Nikolaidis, S. Kontogiannis, and G. Trakada, “High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula vs. Non-invasive ventilation in hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 16, p. 5994, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Cortegiani, F. Longhini, F. Madotto et al., “High flow nasal therapy versus noninvasive ventilation as initial ventilatory strategy in COPD exacerbation: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized trial,” Critical Care, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 692, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Tan, J. H. Walline, B. Ling et al., “High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients after extubation: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial,” Critical Care, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 489, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Fang, Q. Wan, Y. Tian et al., “[Comparative study on pros and cons of sequential high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation immediately following early extubated patients with severe respiratory failure due to acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease],” Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1215–1220, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. R. Osadnik, V. S. Tee, K. V. Carson-Chahhoud, J. Picot, J. A. Wedzicha, and B. J. Smith, “Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 7, no. 7, Article ID Cd004104, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Chynkiamis, N. D. Lane, D. Megaritis et al., “Effect of portable noninvasive ventilation on thoracoabdominal volumes in recovery from intermittent exercise in patients with COPD,” Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 401–413, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Rochwerg, L. Brochard, M. W. Elliott et al., “Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure,” European Respiratory Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, Article ID 1602426, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Rittayamai, P. Phuangchoei, J. Tscheikuna, N. Praphruetkit, and L. Brochard, “Effects of high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation on inspiratory effort in hypercapnic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preliminary study,” Annals of Intensive Care, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 122, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Patsaki, A. Christakou, E. Papadopoulos et al., “The combination of inspiratory muscle training and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for promoting weaning outcomes in difficult-to-wean patients: protocol for a randomised controlled trial,” ERJ Open Res, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 88–202, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Fricke, S. Tatkov, U. Domanski, K. J. Franke, G. Nilius, and H. Schneider, “Nasal high flow reduces hypercapnia by clearance of anatomical dead space in a COPD patient,” Respiratory Medicine Case Reports, vol. 19, pp. 115–117, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Nishimura, “High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults: physiological benefits, indication, clinical benefits, and adverse effects,” Respiratory Care, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 529–541, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Okuda, N. Tanaka, K. Naito et al., “Evaluation by various methods of the physiological mechanism of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in healthy volunteers,” BMJ Open Respiratory Research, vol. 4, no. 1, Article ID e000200, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Wang, D. Ma, J. Hu, and Q. Chu, “Analysis of the effects of humidified high flow nasal oxygen therapy combined with noninvasive mechanical ventilation on treatment outcomes,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2022, Article ID 2910813, 10 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Di Mussi, S. Spadaro, T. Stripoli et al., “High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy decreases postextubation neuroventilatory drive and work of breathing in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,” Critical Care, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 180, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Sun, Y. Li, B. Ling et al., “<p>High flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute-moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure: an observational cohort study</p&gt,” International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, vol. 14, pp. 1229–1237, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Pelaia, A. Bruni, E. Garofalo et al., “Oxygenation strategies during flexible bronchoscopy: a review of the literature,” Respiratory Research, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 253, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. B. Doshi, J. S. Whittle, G. Dungan et al., “The ventilatory effect of high velocity nasal insufflation compared to non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation in the treatment of hypercapneic respiratory failure: a subgroup analysis,” Heart and Lung, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 610–615, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Yanping Du et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

834

Downloads

759

Citations