Use of high-flow nasal cannula versus other noninvasive ventilation techniques or conventional oxygen therapy for respiratory support following pediatric cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Noninvasive respiratory support may be provided to decrease the risk of postextubation failure following surgery. Despite these efforts, approximately 3%-27% of infants and children still experience respiratory failure after tracheal extubation following cardiac surgery. This systematic review evaluates studies comparing the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula to conventional oxygen therapy such as nasal cannula and other noninvasive ventilation techniques in preventing postextubation failure in this patient population. Methods: A systematic and comprehensive search was conducted in major databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Central. The search encompassed articles focusing on the prophylactic use of high-flow nasal cannula following tracheal extubation in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease. The inclusion criteria for this review consisted of randomized clinical trials as well as observational, cohort, and case-control studies. Results: A total of 1295 studies were screened and 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. These 12 studies included a total of 1565 children, classified into three groups: seven studies compared high-flow nasal cannula to noninvasive ventilation techniques, four studies compared high-flow nasal cannula to conventional oxygen therapy, and one observational single-arm study explored the use of high-flow nasal cannula with no control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of tracheal reintubation between high-flow nasal cannula and conventional oxygen therapy (risk ratio [RR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24-1.90, p = .46). However, there was a lower incidence of tracheal reintubation in patients who were extubated to high-flow nasal cannula versus those extubated to noninvasive ventilation techniques (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32-0.63, p < .01). The high-flow nasal cannula group also demonstrated a lower mortality rate compared to the noninvasive ventilation techniques group (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.16-0.61, p < .01) as well as a shorter postoperative length of stay (mean difference = -8.76 days, 95% CI: -13.08 to -4.45, p < .01) and shorter intensive care length of stay (mean difference = -4.63 days, 95% CI: -9.16 to -0.11, p = .04). Conclusion: High-flow nasal cannula is more effective in reducing the rate of postextubation failure compared to other forms of noninvasive ventilation techniques following surgery for congenital heart disease in pediatric-aged patients. high-flow nasal cannula is also associated with lower mortality rates and shorter length of stay. However, when comparing high-flow nasal cannula to conventional oxygen therapy, the findings were inconclusive primarily due to a limited number of scientific studies available on this specific comparison. Future study is needed to further define the benefit of high-flow nasal cannula compared to conventional oxygen therapy and various types of noninvasive ventilation techniques.