Skip to main content

Effect of oxygenation modalities among patients with postoperative respiratory failure: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background

Postoperative respiratory failure is associated with increased perioperative complications. Our aim is to compare outcomes between non-invasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), and standard oxygen in patients at high-risk for or with established postoperative respiratory failure.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were reviewed from inception to September 2019. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV, HFNC, and standard oxygen in patients at high risk for or with established postoperative respiratory failure. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and Bayesian 95% credible intervals (CrIs).

Results

Nine RCTs representing 1865 patients were included (the mean age was 61.6 ± 10.2 and 64.4% were males). In comparison with standard oxygen, NIV was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.23; 95% Cr.I. 0.10–0.46), mortality (OR 0.45; 95% Cr.I. 0.27–0.71), and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections (OR 0.43, 95% Cr.I. 0.25–0.70). Compared to standard oxygen, HFNC was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rate (OR 0.28, 95% Cr.I. 0.08–0.76) and ICU-acquired infections (OR 0.41; 95% Cr.I. 0.20–0.80), but not mortality (OR 0.58; 95% Cr.I. 0.26–1.22). There were no significant differences between HFNC and NIV regarding different outcomes. In a subgroup analysis, we observed a mortality benefit with NIV over standard oxygen in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgeries but not in abdominal surgeries. Furthermore, in comparison with standard oxygen, NIV and HFNC were associated with lower intubation rates following cardiothoracic surgeries while only NIV reduced the intubation rates following abdominal surgeries.

Conclusions

Among patients with post-operative respiratory failure, HFNC and NIV were associated with significantly reduced rates of intubation and ICU-acquired infections compared with standard oxygen. Moreover, NIV was associated with reduced mortality in comparison with standard oxygen.

Introduction

Postoperative respiratory failure is associated with increased perioperative complications such as reintubation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and healthcare-associated infections, which can lead to increases in mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, delays in hospital discharges, and higher healthcare resource utilization [1,2,3,4].

Several post-operative pulmonary complications may result in post-operative hypoxemic respiratory failure, including pneumonia, atelectasis, bronchospasm, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. The incidence of these complications is variable and ranges between 5 and 40% according to the type of surgery, as well as other risk factors including anesthetic technique, duration of surgery, and severity of illness [5,6,7,8,9]. Cardiac surgery has the highest rate of post-operative respiratory complications (up to 40%), followed by thoracic surgery (30%), while abdominal and vascular surgeries have a low incidence of post-operative pulmonary complications (6–7%) [5,6,7].

In nonsurgical patients, oxygenation modalities for hypoxemic respiratory failure are varied. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has shown promising results for reducing intubation rates among patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations [10,11,12]. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a new oxygenation strategy that delivers oxygen at high concentrations and a high flow rate and has been increasingly utilized due to its ease of application, tolerance, and potential clinical benefits [13, 14]. Nevertheless, the current European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) guidelines have conditional recommendations regarding the use of NIV in postoperative respiratory failure [15]. In addition, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of HFNC vs NIV in postoperative patients. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of HFNC, NIV, and standard oxygen therapy in the treatment of patients who developed or were considered high risk for post-operative respiratory failure.

Methodology

Study design and study selection

Our study is a meta-analysis and systematic review performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement [16]. Two reviewers (M.B., I.G) independently and separately performed a literature search utilizing electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to September 2019 without language restrictions. Articles were first screened by titles and abstracts before exclusion. Full texts of eligible articles were reviewed for final inclusion or exclusion. Mesh terms used were as follows: “postoperative respiratory failure”, “respiratory failure”, “postoperative”, “hypoxemic”, “hypoxic”, “non-invasive ventilation”, “NIV”, “high-flow nasal cannula”, “HFNC”, “high-flow nasal therapy”, “HFNT”, “high-flow nasal oxygen”, “HFNO”, “oxygen”, “facemask”, and “ventilation”. References of relevant articles were also reviewed for possible inclusion. A third reviewer (YZ) resolved any discrepancies.

Inclusion criteria and study selection

Only RCTs were eligible for inclusion in our analysis. We included studies that compared different oxygenation strategies in patients who developed or were deemed at high risk for developing post-operative hypoxemic respiratory failure. Patients at risk were defined to have intermediate to high risk for development of post-operative pulmonary complications according to either Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score of ≥ 26 points [4]. Patients who failed spontaneous breathing trial and those who passed spontaneous breathing trials but had risk factors for failed extubation such as cardiac dysfunction, obesity (BMI > 30), or failure of previous extubation were also considered high risk. Post-operative hypoxemic respiratory failure was defined as the development of tachypnea with a respiratory rate of ≥ 25 respirations per minute, intense work of breathing with the use of accessory muscles, hypoxemia (oxygen saturation ≤ 92% or partial arterial oxygen pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤ 300) in the immediate post-operative period or within 7 days post-operatively. We excluded studies that investigated prophylactic use of NIV and HFNC as a routine therapy in the post-operative period.

Data were extracted into a predesigned table independently and separately by two reviewers (L.R and S.S.). Any discrepancies were solved by consensus with a third reviewer (Y.Z.).

Quality assessment

Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was used for quality assessment for the included RCTs [17]. Each of the included RCTs was assessed for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness of participants and health-care personnel, blindness of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases if any were present.

Outcomes

Our main outcome was the intubation rate following surgery. Secondary outcomes included mortality at the longest follow-up period provided by each study and ICU-acquired infections.

Statistical analysis

An informative prior Bayesian framework for the network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation to derive the posterior distribution of the parameter estimates. We used a beta distribution of (0, 2) for binominal likelihood. We used the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method to assess for convergence. A consistency model which contains treatment as a fixed effect and trial as a random effect was used. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and Bayesian 95% credible intervals (Cr.Is). Inconsistency was assessed using the deviance residuals and deviance information criteria statistics. Sensitivity analysis was performed by including only trials that included patients who had developed respiratory failure. Furthermore, subgroup analysis according to the type of surgery (cardiothoracic or abdominal) was performed. In addition, to show the validity of our results, we performed a direct pairwise meta-analysis for comparisons that have three or more studies comparing directly the two interventions.

In an exploratory analysis, we performed a meta-regression analysis to explain any significant heterogeneity (> 25%) for NIV vs standard oxygen therapy direct meta-analysis. Moderators included study-level covariates: age, gender, body mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, respiratory rate, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and partial arterial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2). All data were analyzed using RevMan v5.3 Windows, Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software v3, NetMetaXL v1.6.1, and WinBUGS v1.4.3.

Results

Summary of the included studies

After review of 1369 articles, 9 studies were included in the final analysis representing 1865 patients [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Figure 1 illustrates the search process. The mean age was 61.6 ± 10.2, and 64.4% were males. Four RCTs included patients undergoing cardiac and/or lung surgeries [19, 20, 24, 26], 3 RCTs involved patients undergoing abdominal surgeries [21,22,23], and 2 RCTs included patients following organ transplantation [18, 25]. Two trials included patients considered at high risk of post-operative pulmonary complications and respiratory failure [23, 26] and one trial included patients at risk for respiratory failure or patients with established respiratory failure [20] while six trials included patients who developed respiratory failure in the immediate post-operative period or up to 7 days postoperatively [18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25]. Two trials compared HFNC vs NIV [18, 20], five trials compared NIV vs standard oxygen therapy [19, 21, 22, 24, 25], and 2 trials compared HFNC vs standard oxygen therapy [23, 26]. Table 1 explains the characteristics of the included trials, and Supplementary Figure 1 illustrates the network geometry. NIV was the most commonly used treatment (41.2% of patients), HFNC was used in 31.6% of cases, and 27.2% of patients were treated with standard oxygen therapy. Table 2 explains the baseline and demographic characteristics of included patients.

Fig. 1
figure1

Flow chart of literature search and study selection

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Table 2 Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of included patients

Included studies were noted to have inevitable performance bias as blinding of participants and personnel was difficult given the nature of the intervention. Detailed quality assessment was not performed for one study as we only found the abstract with no full article explaining the methods. Supplementary Figure 2 shows the risk of bias in each included RCT based on the authors’ judgment.

Outcomes

Rate of intubation

NIV and HFNC were associated with significant reductions in intubation rates when compared to standard oxygen therapy (OR 0.23; 95% Cr.I. 0.10–0.46) and (OR 0.28; 95% Cr.I. 0.08–0.76), respectively. However, there was no significant difference between HFNC and NIV with regard to the intubation rates (OR 0.82; 95% Cr.I. 0.30–2.50), Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure2

Forest plot for the rate of intubation between competing interventions

Sensitivity analysis was performed by including only patients who developed acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (but not patients at increased risk), which showed similar results. In a subgroup analysis for patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery, both NIV and HFNC were associated with a similar reduction in intubation rates compared with standard oxygen therapy (NIV vs standard oxygen (OR 0.08; 95% Cr.I. 0.03–0.19) and HFN vs standard oxygen (OR 0.08; 95% Cr.I. 0.03–0.21)) (Fig. 3a). However, in patients undergoing abdominal surgery, NIV (but not HFNC) was associated with significantly reduced intubation rates compared with standard therapy (NIV vs standard oxygen (OR 0.51; 95% Cr.I. 0.26–0.87)) (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3
figure3

Forest plot for the rate of intubation between competing interventions following cardiothoracic surgery (a) and abdominal (b) surgery

In an exploratory meta-regression analysis, we found that higher PaCO2 was associated with lower risk for intubation when NIV was compared to standard oxygen therapy (P < 0.05) (Supplementary Figure 3).

Mortality

NIV was associated with a significant reduction of mortality in comparison with standard oxygen therapy (OR 0.45; 95% Cr.I. 0.27–0.71). Additionally, there was no significant difference between NIV and HFNC (OR 0.78; 95% Cr.I. 0.41–1.50) or HFNC and standard oxygen (OR 0.58; 95% Cr.I. 0.26–1.22) as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure4

Forest plot for mortality between competing interventions

In a subgroup analysis based on the type of surgery (cardiothoracic or abdominal), mortality benefit of NIV was limited to those undergoing cardiothoracic surgery compared with standard oxygen therapy (OR 0.31; 95% Cr.I. 0.13–0.70), unlike those undergoing abdominal surgeries (OR 0.56; 95% Cr.I. 0.27–1.08) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure5

Forest plot for mortality between competing interventions following cardiothoracic surgery (a) and abdominal surgery (b)

ICU-acquired infections

HFNC and NIV were associated with a decreased risk for ICU-acquired infections in comparison with standard oxygen therapy (OR 0.41; 95% Cr.I. 0.20–0.80) and (OR 0.43; 95% Cr.I. 0.25–0.70), respectively. No significant difference was found between HFNC and NIV (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6
figure6

Forest plot for the incidence of ICU-acquired infections between competing interventions

Direct pairwise meta-analysis results

We have performed direct pairwise meta-analysis comparing NIV versus standard oxygen which showed consistent results of the network meta-analysis (Supplementary Figure 4). However, we did not perform the direct meta-analysis for HFNC vs NIV or HFNC vs standard oxygen because studies that compared directly between these interventions were one or two studies. Supplementary Figures 5 and 6 show the results of these individual studies for different outcomes.

Discussion

In this first network meta-analysis comparing various oxygenation strategies in patients at risk for hypoxemic respiratory failure or established respiratory failure within 7 days of surgery, we have found that NIV and HFNC were associated with a significant reduction in intubation rates and ICU-acquired infections when compared to standard oxygen therapy. However, when compared to standard oxygen therapy, only NIV was found to have a mortality benefit in this patient population. We found HFNC and NIV to have no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcomes. Furthermore, in a subgroup analysis, patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery had a significantly lower rate of intubation when treated with HFNC or NIV in comparison with standard oxygen therapy, but mortality was significantly lower in patients treated with NIV in comparison with standard oxygen therapy. Additionally, in patients with abdominal surgeries, only NIV was associated with a significant reduction in intubation rates compared to standard oxygen, but there was no significant difference in mortality between competing interventions.

Hypoxemia occurs frequently in the post-operative period and can lead to acute respiratory failure. Several factors play a role in the development of post-operative respiratory failure, including diaphragmatic dysfunction, retained secretions, and atelectasis and alveolar collapse which promote bacterial growth and infections [27,28,29]. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) improves oxygenation by recruiting collapsed alveoli and increasing tidal volume participating in gas exchange without hemodynamic adverse events [1, 30]. However, previous studies and meta-analyses had not shown a significant reduction in intubation rates with prophylactic use of NIV after surgery, despite the reduction in the incidence of post-operative pulmonary complications [31,32,33].

Currently, NIV is recommended in the treatment of patients with post-operative respiratory failure according to the ERS/ATS guidelines [15]. Our results indicate that intubation rates and mortality are significantly lower in patient populations who are at an increased risk or have developed postoperative respiratory failure treated with NIV in comparison with standard oxygen. In our subgroup analysis, mortality benefit was only noted in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgeries but not in abdominal surgeries. In an RCT examining NIV vs standard oxygen therapy in patients with respiratory failure after abdominal surgeries, Jaber and Antonelli found that NIV was associated with lower intubation rates, less days on mechanical ventilator, and significantly lower rates of healthcare-associated infections, including pneumonia. Although mortality rates were lower in the NIV group (14 vs 21%), the difference did not reach a statistical significance in their study [22]. Similarly, patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery and treated with NIV for postoperative respiratory failure had lower rates of intubation and mortality when compared to patients treated with standard oxygen therapy [19, 24].

HFNC is a new oxygenation strategy that has been used more frequently in patients with respiratory failure. It is found to be more comfortable than NIV and can deliver concentrated oxygen reaching 100% with a high flow rate up to 60 mL/min [34, 35]. Furthermore, it can provide positive end-expiratory pressure up to 2–3mmHG [34, 35]. The use of HFNC has shown beneficial effects in patients who developed post-extubation respiratory failure or when used during intubation to prevent hypoxemia when compared to standard oxygen [36,37,38]. Additionally, Frat et al. found lower mortality rates with HFNC in comparison with NIV and conventional oxygen in patients with non-hypercapnic hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, other trials did not find differences between HFNC and standard oxygen therapy [39,40,41,42]. The use of HFNC in the post-operative period was investigated by several RCTs. In a large RCT involving more than 800 patients after cardiac surgery, the use of HFNC and NIV in the treatment of high-risk patients or those who had developed post-operative respiratory failure was similar between both interventions with similar intubation rates, mortality, and rates of hospital-acquired infections [20]. In our analysis, there was no difference between HFNC and NIV in intubation rates, mortality, and ICU-acquired infections. Similar results were also found in both subgroups (cardiothoracic surgeries and abdominal surgeries).

In addition, HFNC was associated with lower intubation rates in patients following cardiothoracic surgeries but not following abdominal surgeries when compared to standard oxygen therapy. This could be explained by the fact that in thoracic surgery, HFNC could minimize lung decruitment post-extubation by providing some level of continuous positive airway pressure through high-flow ventilation, though this positive pressure can be variable due to the leak around the nasal cannula and nonguaranteed closed mouth of the patients [26].

Furthermore, we found lower rates of infections with HFNC and NIV when compared to standard oxygen are attributed to lower intubation rates in both interventions, which avoids the need for mechanical ventilation and decreases catheter-associated infections.

Although there was no significant difference between HFNC and NIV with regard to rates of intubation, mortality, and ICU-associated infections, when each of these two strategies was compared to standard oxygen, NIV was associated with a survival benefit especially in patients who had cardiothoracic surgery. Additionally, there was a trend toward lower mortality in abdominal surgeries, but HFNC had no mortality benefit in the total patient population and both subgroups. Whether a lower number of patients included in the comparison between HFNC and standard oxygen or certain other factors could have contributed to the inability to detect a mortality benefit despite a significant reduction of intubation rates is needed to be addressed in further larger and well-controlled trials.

Nevertheless, due to the low events, further RCTs are needed to compare between both interventions in different types of surgeries to determine its effect on various long-term clinical outcomes and quality of life and also to examine whether certain patients’ risk factors could affect the beneficial effects of these interventions towards reduction of intubation rates and mortality.

Limitations

Our analysis has several limitations. First, we were unable to perform analysis based on various risk factors, duration of surgery, severity scores, and different surgical types as we lack patients’ level data. Second, blinding of intervention and personnel was impossible given the nature of intervention. Third, there were few sample size and limited events, and therefore, larger trials and long-term outcomes are needed. Fourth, we used informative prior module for our analysis which could affect the results given the small number of included trials. Fifth, there was a significant time gap between included studies through which there was a significant development in the ICU management, preoperative and postoperative evaluation and care, supportive management, and criteria for admission to the ICU.

Conclusion

Among patients who are at risk for developing post-operative respiratory failure, or have developed post-operative respiratory failure, the use of NIV was associated with reduced rates of intubation, mortality, and ICU-acquired infections in comparison with standard oxygen therapy. In addition, HFNC was associated with reduced rates of intubation and ICU-acquired infections but not mortality in comparison with standard oxygen. There was no significant difference between HFNC and NIV on the various studied clinical outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials are available and can be presented upon request.

Abbreviations

NIV:

Non-invasive ventilation

HFNC:

High-flow nasal cannula

ICU:

Intensive care unit

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

OR:

Odds ratio

Cr.I.:

Credible interval

References

  1. 1.

    Chiumello D, Chevallard G, Gregoretti C. Non-invasive ventilation in postoperative patients: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2011;37:918–29 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21424246.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pearse RM, Moreno RP, Bauer P, Pelosi P, Metnitz P, Spies C, et al. Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2012;380:1059–65 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Serpa Neto A, Hemmes SNT, Barbas CSV, Beiderlinden M, Fernandez-Bustamante A, Futier E, et al. Incidence of mortality and morbidity related to postoperative lung injury in patients who have undergone abdominal or thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med [Internet]. 2014;2:1007–15 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25466352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, Paluzie G, Vallès J, Castillo J, et al. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. Anesthesiology [Internet]. 2010;113:1338–50 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mazo V, Sabaté S, Canet J, Gallart L, de Abreu MG, Belda J, et al. Prospective external validation of a predictive score for postoperative pulmonary complications. Anesthesiology [Internet]. 2014;121:219–31 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24901240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Gallart L, Canet J. Post-operative pulmonary complications: Understanding definitions and risk assessment. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol [Internet]. 2015;29:315–30. Available from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26643097.

  7. 7.

    Arozullah AM, Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J. Participants in the National Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Development and validation of a multifactorial risk index for predicting postoperative pneumonia after major noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2001;135:847–57 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11712875.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Futier E, Constantin J-M, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, et al. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2013;369:428–37 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902482.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Canet J, Gallart L. Postoperative respiratory failure: pathogenesis, prediction, and prevention. Curr Opin Crit Care [Internet]. 2014;20:56–62 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24240985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Brochard L, Mancebo J, Wysocki M, Lofaso F, Conti G, Rauss A, et al. Noninvasive ventilation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 1995;333:817–22 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7651472.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Keenan SP, Sinuff T, Cook DJ, Hill NS. Which patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease benefit from noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation? A systematic review of the literature. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2003;138:861–70 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12779296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lightowler JV, Wedzicha JA, Elliott MW, Ram FSF. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation to treat respiratory failure resulting from exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ [Internet]. 2003;326:185 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12543832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Frat J-P, Coudroy R, Thille AW. Non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy: when to choose one over the other? Theatr Res Int. 2018; Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30406954.

  14. 14.

    Parke R, McGuinness S, Dixon R, Jull A. Open-label, phase II study of routine high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. 2013;111:925–31 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921199.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, Hess D, Hill NS, Nava S, et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J [Internet], Available from. 2017;50 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28860265.

  16. 16.

    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015;4:1 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25554246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ [Internet]. 2011;343:d5928 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gupta S, Govil D, Srinivasan S, Patel SJ, Gupta A, Tomar DS, et al. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as an alternative to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in acute respiratory failure (ARF) in immunosuppressed patients-an Indian post liver transplant experience. Intensive Care Med Exp Conf 29th Annu Congr Eur Soc intensive care Med ESICM 2016 Italy [Internet]. 2016;4 Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/doi/10.1002/central/CN-01407482/full.

  19. 19.

    Zhu G, Wang D, Liu S, Jia M, Jia S. Efficacy and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of acute respiratory failure after cardiac surgery. Chin Med J (Engl) [Internet]. 2013;126:4463–9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24286408.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stéphan F, Barrucand B, Petit P, Rézaiguia-Delclaux S, Médard A, Delannoy B, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen vs noninvasive positive airway pressure in hypoxemic patients after cardiothoracic surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2015;313:2331–9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25980660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Squadrone V, Coha M, Cerutti E, Schellino MM, Biolino P, Occella P, et al. Continuous positive airway pressure for treatment of postoperative hypoxemia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2005;293:589–95 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15687314.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Jaber S, Lescot T, Futier E, Paugam-Burtz C, Seguin P, Ferrandiere M, et al. Effect of noninvasive ventilation on tracheal reintubation among patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure following abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2016;315:1345–53 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26975890.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Futier E, Paugam-Burtz C, Godet T, Khoy-Ear L, Rozencwajg S, Delay J-M, et al. Effect of early postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on hypoxaemia in patients after major abdominal surgery: a French multicentre randomised controlled trial (OPERA). Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2016;42:1888–98 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27771739.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Auriant I, Jallot A, Hervé P, Cerrina J, Le Roy LF, Fournier JL, et al. Noninvasive ventilation reduces mortality in acute respiratory failure following lung resection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2001;164:1231–5 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11673215.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Antonelli M, Conti G, Bufi M, Costa MG, Lappa A, Rocco M, et al. Noninvasive ventilation for treatment of acute respiratory failure in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation: a randomized trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2000;283:235–41 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10634340.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Yu Y, Qian X, Liu C, Zhu C. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy for patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy after extubation. Can Respir J [Internet]. 2017;2017:7894631 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28298878.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ahmed AA. Dysfunction of the diaphragm. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2012;366:2036–7 author reply 2037. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22621640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Canet J, Mazo V. Postoperative pulmonary complications. Minerva Anestesiol [Internet]. 2010;76:138–43 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150855.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    van Kaam AH, Lachmann RA, Herting E, De Jaegere A, van Iwaarden F, Noorduyn LA, et al. Reducing atelectasis attenuates bacterial growth and translocation in experimental pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2004;169:1046–53 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14977624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jaber S, Antonelli M. Preventive or curative postoperative noninvasive ventilation after thoracic surgery: still a grey zone? Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2014;40:280–3 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24445592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Zarbock A, Mueller E, Netzer S, Gabriel A, Feindt P, Kindgen-Milles D. Prophylactic nasal continuous positive airway pressure following cardiac surgery protects from postoperative pulmonary complications: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 500 patients. Chest [Internet]. 2009;135:1252–9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19017864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Al Jaaly E, Fiorentino F, Reeves BC, Ind PW, Angelini GD, Kemp S, et al. Effect of adding postoperative noninvasive ventilation to usual care to prevent pulmonary complications in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg [Internet]. 2013;146:912–8 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23582830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ireland CJ, Chapman TM, Mathew SF, Herbison GP, Zacharias M. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during the postoperative period for prevention of postoperative morbidity and mortality following major abdominal surgery. Cochrane database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2014:CD008930 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25081420.

  34. 34.

    Mauri T, Turrini C, Eronia N, Grasselli G, Volta CA, Bellani G, et al. Physiologic effects of high-flow nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2017;195:1207–15 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27997805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Corley A, Caruana LR, Barnett AG, Tronstad O, Fraser JF. Oxygen delivery through high-flow nasal cannulae increase end-expiratory lung volume and reduce respiratory rate in post-cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. 2011;107:998–1004 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908497.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Maggiore SM, Idone FA, Vaschetto R, Festa R, Cataldo A, Antonicelli F, et al. Nasal high-flow versus Venturi mask oxygen therapy after extubation. Effects on oxygenation, comfort, and clinical outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med [Internet]. 2014;190:282–8 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25003980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rittayamai N, Tscheikuna J, Rujiwit P. High-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy after endotracheal extubation: a randomized crossover physiologic study. Respir Care [Internet]. 2014;59:485–90 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24046462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, Subira C, Frutos-Vivar F, Rialp G, et al. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2016;315:1354–61 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26975498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Frat J-P, Thille AW, Mercat A, Girault C, Ragot S, Perbet S, et al. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2015;372:2185–96 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25981908.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lemiale V, Mokart D, Mayaux J, Lambert J, Rabbat A, Demoule A, et al. The effects of a 2-h trial of high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula versus Venturi mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized trial. Crit Care [Internet]. 2015;19:380 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26521922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Jones PG, Kamona S, Doran O, Sawtell F, Wilsher M. Randomized controlled trial of humidified high-flow nasal oxygen for acute respiratory distress in the emergency department: the HOT-ER study. Respir Care [Internet]. 2016;61:291–9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26577199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Azoulay E, Lemiale V, Mokart D, Nseir S, Argaud L, Pène F, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen vs standard oxygen on 28-day mortality in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: the HIGH randomized clinical trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2018;320:2099–107 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357270.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

NA

Funding

There was no funding for this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.Z.: study design, literature search, data analysis, data extraction, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript.

B.K.: study design, data analysis, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. M.B.: literature search, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. L.R.: data extraction, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. I.G.: literature search, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. E.I.: study design, data analysis, literature search, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. J.K.: literature search, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. F.R.: drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. S.S.: data extraction, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. A.B.: data analysis, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. S.Se.: data extraction, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. G.B.: drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. E.S.: study design, drafting the manuscript, final approval of the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yazan Zayed.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

NA

Consent for publication

The authors give the Journal of Intensive Care the consent for publishing this manuscript. There are no personal information that required consent.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary figure 1:.

Network geometry. Number of participants in each group represented with node size and the edge widths are proportional to the number of studies between different interventions. A = High-flow nasal cannula; B = Non-invasive ventilation; C = standard oxygen therapy.

Supplementary figure 2:.

Risk of bias assessment based on authors’ judgment for each of the included RCTs. Blank items indicate unclear risk of bias.

Supplementary figure 3:

Regression of PaCO2 on intubation rate between non-invasive ventilation and standard oxygen. Higher PaCO2 was associated with a lower risk for intubation with NIV use (P < 0.05).

Supplementary figure 4:.

Direct meta-analysis results between NIV versus standard oxygen showing forest plots for intubation rate, mortality, and ICU acquired infections.

Supplementary figure 5:.

Results of individual studies comparing between HFNC and standard oxygen for different outcomes.

Supplementary figure 6:.

Results of individual studies comparing between NIV and HFNC for different outcomes.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zayed, Y., Kheiri, B., Barbarawi, M. et al. Effect of oxygenation modalities among patients with postoperative respiratory failure: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. j intensive care 8, 51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-020-00468-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Postoperative respiratory failure
  • High-flow nasal cannula
  • Non-invasive ventilation
  • Standard oxygen
  • Meta-analysis