High‐flow nasal cannula during pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an increasingly concerning global public health issue due to its high burden of morbidity and mortality. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a comprehensive intervention to improve patients' physical and psychological conditions, commonly involving oxygen supplementation. The potential benefits of high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) have recently sparked interest as oxygen therapy. In this context, this study aims to assess the effects of HFNC during the exercise training component of a PR program in people with COPD.MethodsSystematic review (CRD42022330929). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including crossover RCTs with adults with stable COPD. We included trials using oxygen therapy with HFNC during the exercise training component of a PR programme. Primary outcomes: disease‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity (EC) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes: treatment adherence, breathlessness and future exacerbations.ResultsWe included five studies with 300 participants with moderate to severe COPD. The certainty of the evidence was primarily low or very low for all outcomes of interest due to risk of bias, inconsistency or imprecision. HFNC has little to no difference in HRQoL (4 studies, 129 participants, MD 0.17, 95% CI −1.20 to 1.54; I2 50%). HFNC may result in little to no difference in EC (3 studies, 212 participants, mean difference 18.73, 95% CI −20.49 to 28.94; I2 56%), and we are uncertain about the effect of HFNC on breathlessness (4 studies; 244 participants, MD of −0.07, 95% CI −0.4 to 0.26; I2 63%). Only one study with 44 participants reported a participant's withdrawal because of progressive dyspnoea during lower limb exercise.ConclusionsWe are uncertain about the effect of HFNC during the exercise component of a PR programme in HRQoL, EC or dyspnoea compared to usual care or conventional supplementary oxygen. Non‐domiciliary oxygen patients showed improvements in HRQoL, EC and dyspnoea.