BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-flow therapy is the most recent, and popular, mode of respiratory support in neonates. However, the evidence supporting its efficacy and safety has not yet been established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efficacy and safety of high-flow therapy compared with other modes of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in preterm infants.
METHODS: Articles were indexed by using Medline, Embase, Scopus, OpenSIGLE, Health Management Information Consortium, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials involving preterm infants, comparing high-flow therapy with other modes of NIV, and reporting extractable data on relevant outcomes, were selected. Data on efficacy, safety, and other common neonatal outcomes were extracted on predesigned forms.
RESULTS: In this analysis, we included 1112 preterm infants, participating in 9 clinical trials. High-flow therapy was similar in efficacy to other modes of NIV in preterm infants when used as primary support (odds ratio of failure of therapy, 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 1.88]), as well as after extubation (1.09 [0.58 to 2.02]). There were no significant differences in odds of death (0.48 [0.18 to 1.24]) between the groups. Preterm infants supported on high-flow had significantly lower odds of nasal trauma (0.13 [0.02 to 0.69]).
CONCLUSIONS: High-flow therapy appears to be similar in efficacy and safety to other conventional modes of NIV in preterm infants. It is associated with significantly lower odds of nasal trauma. Caution needs to be exercised in extreme preterm infants because of the paucity of published data.