PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 25, 2026Cureus1 citationsOpen Access

High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy in the Prevention of Post-extubation Hypoxemia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

KSKhaled A SolimanRARafie E AhmedAAAbdulmohsen Alkhalagi

Key Points

  • The aim is to compare the effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, and conventional oxygen therapy in preventing reintubation after extubation.
  • Conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
  • Searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant trials until December 2025
  • Assessed reintubation rates within 72 hours as the primary endpoint
  • Used a random-effects model for data synthesis
  • Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) significantly decreased the reintubation risk (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.94)
  • High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) also decreased reintubation risk (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.97) compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT)
  • No significant difference between HFNC and NIV (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.76-1.89)
  • NIV was ranked as most effective (88% probability), followed by HFNC (60%) and COT (2%)
  • Moderate evidence quality for COT comparisons and low for HFNC versus NIV.

Abstract

Respiratory failure following extubation is a major contributor to patient morbidity and death in intensive care settings. While various methods exist, the relative effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in preventing reintubation remains an area of active research. This systematic review and network meta-analysis assessed these techniques in adult patients after scheduled extubation. A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) available up to December 2025. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. To synthesize findings, a random-effects network meta-analysis was employed, focusing on reintubation rates within a 72-hour window as the primary endpoint. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool was used to evaluate evidence quality. The analysis included 14 RCTs involving a total of 4,146 participants. Results indicated that both NIV (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.94) and HFNC (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.97) significantly decreased the reintubation risk when compared to COT. No significant difference in efficacy was observed between HFNC and NIV (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.76-1.89). Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) rankings, NIV emerged as the most effective intervention (88% probability), followed by HFNC (60%) and then COT (2%). The certainty of evidence was moderate for comparisons involving COT, but low for the HFNC versus NIV comparison because of imprecision. HFNC and NIV are more effective than COT at preventing reintubation in the ICU. HFNC serves as a dependable preventative measure due to its ease of application and performance comparable to NIV. These findings support a shift away from standard COT toward more advanced noninvasive respiratory support.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Soliman et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699e90eff5123be5ed04e34ehttps://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.104096
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper