The Bottom Line - By Duncan Chambler - 5th July 2016 - Peer-review editor: Steve Mathieu
Ref. Jones. Respiratory Care 2016; 61(3):291-299. doi:10.4187/respcare.04252
"Clinical Question
In hypoxic adults presenting to the emergency department, does nasal high-flow oxygen compared to standard oxygen therapy reduce the need for advanced respiratory support?
Authors’ Conclusions
Oxygen therapy delivered by high-flow nasal cannulae did not reduce the need for non-invasive or invasive ventilation when compared against standard oxygen therapy
However, the trial was unexpectedly underpowered and a true, clinically important benefit may exist, therefore this trial should be considered a pilot for a larger (~900 patient) trial
One in 12 patients are intolerant of oxygen delivery via high-flow nasal cannulae
The Bottom Line
This trial did not demonstrate a difference between nasal high-flow oxygen and standard oxygen therapy in hypoxic and dyspneic patients arriving in the Emergency Department
Significant weaknesses in the methodology mean that no firm conclusion can be drawn, as a false positive result may have occurred"