Paramedic Papers

Home Respiratory HFNO reduces intubation vs conventional oxygen

Respiratory

HFNO reduces intubation vs conventional oxygen

High‐Flow Nasal Oxygen Versus Conventional Oxygen Therapy and Non‐Invasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Emergency Medicine Australasia · Added 15 September 2026

Systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 RCTs (1,955 patients) comparing high-flow nasal oxygen with conventional oxygen and NIV for acute respiratory failure in the ED — HFNO reduced intubation versus conventional oxygen (RR 0.61) but not versus NIV, with no clear benefit over either in COPD or acute heart failure.

Study type
Systematic review
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of ED RCTs
Participants
17 RCTs, 1,955 adults with acute respiratory failure in the ED
Main finding
HFNO reduced intubation and mechanical ventilation versus COT and NIV overall (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47–0.88); versus COT alone RR 0.61 (0.41–0.91), but not versus NIV (RR 0.69, 0.42–1.14); benefit in undifferentiated ARF (RR 0.61, 0.41–0.93) but not COPD or acute heart failure.
Caveat
10 of 17 studies had some risk-of-bias concerns and several analyses had notable heterogeneity.
Bottom line
Supports current practice

Why it matters in Australia (Medium relevance). transferability — ED-based and HFNO isn't carried prehospital, but it shapes expectations for the respiratory distress patients we hand over on CPAP

Learning goal

Refine my patient selection for high-flow nasal oxygen versus non-invasive ventilation in undifferentiated acute respiratory failure.

Open in dashboard Read the paper (DOI) PubMed

More

Related papers on Respiratory