Transnasal High-Flow Oxygen Therapy versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Treatment of COPD with Type II Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective. To compare the safety and efficacy of transnasal high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNT) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with type II respiratory failure. Methods. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS) on the efficacy of HFNT and NIV in the treatment of COPD. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software after two researchers screened literatures, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results. A total of 948 patients were included in 12 RCTS. Comprehensive analysis results showed that the HFNC group had higher levels of 12 h-PAO2, 48 h-PACO2 and, 48 h-pH than the NIV group, and the differences were statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). There were no significant differences in 24 h-PAO2 and 72 h-PAO2, 12 h-PACO2, 24 h-PACO2 and 72 h-PACO2, 24 h-pH, 48 h-pH, and 72 h-pH between the two groups after treatment ( $P>0.05$ ). Conclusions. Compared with NIV, HFNC does not increase the treatment failure rate in COPD patients with type II respiratory failure, and HFNC has better comfort and tolerance, which is a new potential respiratory support treatment for COPD patients with type II respiratory failure.