High‐Flow Nasal Cannula in Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Yongkang Huang, Na Li, Yajuan Qian, Mengyuan Shao, Shiyuan Gao, Zengli ZhangABSTRACT
Background
High‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and bi‐level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) are both employed in the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, yet their comparative benefits remain uncertain. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare efficacy, safety, and tolerability of HFNC versus BiPAP in adults with hypercapnic respiratory failure.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CNKI, and Wanfang Data through June 2025 for RCTs enrolling patients aged ≥ 16 years with arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO 2 ) > 45 mmHg. Primary outcomes were intubation rate and mortality. Secondary outcomes included arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) or the ratio of PaO2 and inhaled oxygen fraction (FiO2; PaO 2 /FiO 2 ), PaCO 2 , pH, respiratory rate, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, patient comfort, and device‐related complications.
Results
Eleven RCTs ( n = 1069) met inclusion criteria. Intubation (risk difference [RD] = −0.02, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.03) and mortality rates (RD = −0.02, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.02) were similar between modalities. HFNC and BiPAP showed no significant difference in PaCO 2 reduction (mean differences [MD] = 0.74 mmHg; 95% CI, −1.21 to 2.70) or pH normalization (MD = −0.01; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0), or ICU stay (MD = −0.72 days; 95% CI, −1.90 to 0.46). However, BiPAP yielded minor statistically significant improvements in oxygenation (standardized mean differences [SMD] = 0.18, 0.03–0.33) and respiratory rate reduction (MD = 2.06; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.94). HFNC achieved higher comfort scores and fewer skin or gastrointestinal complications.
Conclusion
HFNC and BiPAP offer comparable clinical outcomes in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. BiPAP offers modest physiological advantages, whereas HFNC provides better patient comfort and less adverse events. Large‐scale, multicenter RCTs are needed to further delineate the comparative benefits of HFNC versus BiPAP in diverse patient groups.