Clinical Effects of Non-humidified versus Humidified Low-to-moderate Flow Oxygen Inhalation Therapy via Nasal Cannula: A Systematic Review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 SUNXin-yue ,  ZHANGXiu-ying , CHENGZi-hui

School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China;

Corresponding?author：

ZHANGXiu-ying, Email: 15211170020@fudan.edu.cn

Keywords：

Oxygen inhalation therapy; Humidified; Non-humidified; Low-to-moderate flow; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20160167

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To systematically review the clinical effects of non-humidified versus humidified low-to-moderate flow oxygen inhalation therapy via nasal cannula. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical controlled trials (CCTs) and cross-over studies about the clinical effects of non-humidified versus humidified low-to-moderate flow nasal cannula oxygen inhalation therapy in hospitalized adult patients were searched in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2016), The Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice (EBP) Database, EMbase, PubMed, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from inception to March 2016. Three reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of nine RCTs and three CCTs involving 3 756 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that: non-humidified was superior to humidified oxygen therapy in reducing bacterial contamination of oxygen apparatus (P < 0.05) and the time of daily replacement of sterile water oxygen humidifier bottles (P < 0.05), while the two groups were alike in relieving nasal dryness (RR=1.08, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.29, P=0.37), nasal bleeding (RR=1.17, 95%CI 0.66 to 2.08, P=0.59) and discomfort (RR=0.80, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.14, P=0.22). Conclusion Current evidence indicates that there is no significant difference between non-humidified and humidified low-to-moderate flow nasal cannula oxygen inhalation therapy in relieving patients' nasal dryness, nasal bleeding and discomfort. But non-humidified oxygen therapy can reduce bacterial contamination of oxygen apparatus, simplify the operation procedures and lessen nurses' operation time.

Citation： SUNXin-yue, ZHANGXiu-ying, CHENGZi-hui. Clinical Effects of Non-humidified versus Humidified Low-to-moderate Flow Oxygen Inhalation Therapy via Nasal Cannula: A Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(9): 1097-1103. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160167 Copy

1.	?劉新民.中華醫學百科大辭海第1卷內科學.北京:軍事醫學科學出版社, 2008: 549.
2.	O'Driscoll BR, Howard LS, Davison AG. BTS guideline for emergency oxygen use in adult patients. Thorax, 2008, 63(Suppl Ⅵ): i1-i68.
3.	李小寒.基礎護理學.第5版.北京:人民衛生出版社, 2012: 239-245.
4.	Campbell EJ, Baker D, Crites-Silver P. Subjective effects of humidification of oxygen for delivery by nasal cannula. A prospective study. Chest, 1988, 93(2): 289-293.
5.	李轉珍, 劉瑞卿, 尤炎麗, 等.無濕化中低流量吸氧預防心血管疾病患者肺部感染的臨床研究.中華醫院感染學雜志, 2015, 25(13): 3008-3009, 3012.
6.	Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). [cited 2012 Jan 5]. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
7.	胡雁.循證護理學.北京:人民衛生出版社, 2012: 81-82.
8.	楊婷, 邰春梅, 未經濕化的中低流量給氧在急診搶救患者中的應用分析.中國醫藥指南, 2015, 13(9): 153-154.
9.	岳新霞, 何江渝, 常琦.常規濕化與未濕化低流量吸氧的臨床效果及不適反應比較.解放軍護理雜志, 2015, 32(5): 25-28.
10.	夏利華, 古滿平, 張克標, 等.非濕化低流量氧療對AECOPD患者舒適度的影響.護理學雜志, 2014, 29(15): 50-51.
11.	王慶芳, 韓婷.非濕化中低流量吸氧導管在慢性肺心病患者護理中的應用.國際護理學雜志, 2014, 33(2): 469-471.
12.	袁志萍, 朱莉, 張秋香.未濕化中低流量雙鼻導管吸氧的臨床觀察及分析.當代護士·學術版, 2013(12): 125-126.
13.	田芳, 楊碧芳, 黃素風, 等.無濕化中低流量吸氧在深圳地區的應用研究.護理研究, 2013, 27(4): 997-999.
14.	陳小英, 黃貴奇, 彭冬琳, 等.中低流量雙鼻塞吸氧濕化與未濕化對患者呼吸道癥狀的影響.實用臨床醫學, 2012, 13(3): 119-120.
15.	李瓏, 王偉, 王根妹, 等.濕化與未濕化中低流量鼻導管吸氧患者呼吸道癥狀的觀察.中華護理雜志, 2010, 45(1): 31-32.
16.	Miyamoto K, Nishimura M. Nasal dryness discomfort in individuals receiving dry oxygen via nasal cannula. Respir Care, 2008, 53(4): 503-504.
17.	Andres D, Thurston N, Brant R, et al. Randomized double-blind trial of the effects of humidified compared with non-humidified low flow oxygen therapy on the symptoms of patients. Can Respir, 1997, 4(2): 76-80.
18.	Nam A, Bae W, Park M, et al. Development of Nursing Practice Guidelines for Non-humidified Low Flow Oxygen Therapy by Nasal Cannula. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm, 2013, 19(1): 87-94.
19.	楚姝, 陳湘玉.經鼻無濕化持續中低流量吸氧效果的系統評價.中國護理管理, 2016, 01: 88-93.
20.	Miyamoto K. Is it necessary to humidify inhaled low-flow oxygen or low-concentration oxygen? Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi, 2004, 42(2): 138-144.
21.	Lasky MS. Bubble humidifiers are useful -Fact or myth? Respir Care, 1982, 27: 735-736.
22.	王越.新型氧氣濕化裝置在老年科患者中的應用及效果觀察.齊魯護理雜志, 2012, 18(7): 12-13.
23.	鄒燈秀, 李秀云, 徐敏.氧氣濕化液污染與呼吸道感染相關性研究進展.護理學雜志, 2007, 22(19): 74-76．.
24.	朱金英, 徐佳.新型一次性氧氣濕化輸送裝置的臨床應用.護理研究, 2011, 25(19): 1784-1785.

1. ?劉新民.中華醫學百科大辭海第1卷內科學.北京:軍事醫學科學出版社, 2008: 549.
2. O'Driscoll BR, Howard LS, Davison AG. BTS guideline for emergency oxygen use in adult patients. Thorax, 2008, 63(Suppl Ⅵ): i1-i68.
3. 李小寒.基礎護理學.第5版.北京:人民衛生出版社, 2012: 239-245.
4. Campbell EJ, Baker D, Crites-Silver P. Subjective effects of humidification of oxygen for delivery by nasal cannula. A prospective study. Chest, 1988, 93(2): 289-293.
5. 李轉珍, 劉瑞卿, 尤炎麗, 等.無濕化中低流量吸氧預防心血管疾病患者肺部感染的臨床研究.中華醫院感染學雜志, 2015, 25(13): 3008-3009, 3012.
6. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). [cited 2012 Jan 5]. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
7. 胡雁.循證護理學.北京:人民衛生出版社, 2012: 81-82.
8. 楊婷, 邰春梅, 未經濕化的中低流量給氧在急診搶救患者中的應用分析.中國醫藥指南, 2015, 13(9): 153-154.
9. 岳新霞, 何江渝, 常琦.常規濕化與未濕化低流量吸氧的臨床效果及不適反應比較.解放軍護理雜志, 2015, 32(5): 25-28.
10. 夏利華, 古滿平, 張克標, 等.非濕化低流量氧療對AECOPD患者舒適度的影響.護理學雜志, 2014, 29(15): 50-51.
11. 王慶芳, 韓婷.非濕化中低流量吸氧導管在慢性肺心病患者護理中的應用.國際護理學雜志, 2014, 33(2): 469-471.
12. 袁志萍, 朱莉, 張秋香.未濕化中低流量雙鼻導管吸氧的臨床觀察及分析.當代護士·學術版, 2013(12): 125-126.
13. 田芳, 楊碧芳, 黃素風, 等.無濕化中低流量吸氧在深圳地區的應用研究.護理研究, 2013, 27(4): 997-999.
14. 陳小英, 黃貴奇, 彭冬琳, 等.中低流量雙鼻塞吸氧濕化與未濕化對患者呼吸道癥狀的影響.實用臨床醫學, 2012, 13(3): 119-120.
15. 李瓏, 王偉, 王根妹, 等.濕化與未濕化中低流量鼻導管吸氧患者呼吸道癥狀的觀察.中華護理雜志, 2010, 45(1): 31-32.
16. Miyamoto K, Nishimura M. Nasal dryness discomfort in individuals receiving dry oxygen via nasal cannula. Respir Care, 2008, 53(4): 503-504.
17. Andres D, Thurston N, Brant R, et al. Randomized double-blind trial of the effects of humidified compared with non-humidified low flow oxygen therapy on the symptoms of patients. Can Respir, 1997, 4(2): 76-80.
18. Nam A, Bae W, Park M, et al. Development of Nursing Practice Guidelines for Non-humidified Low Flow Oxygen Therapy by Nasal Cannula. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm, 2013, 19(1): 87-94.
19. 楚姝, 陳湘玉.經鼻無濕化持續中低流量吸氧效果的系統評價.中國護理管理, 2016, 01: 88-93.
20. Miyamoto K. Is it necessary to humidify inhaled low-flow oxygen or low-concentration oxygen? Nihon Kokyuki Gakkai Zasshi, 2004, 42(2): 138-144.
21. Lasky MS. Bubble humidifiers are useful -Fact or myth? Respir Care, 1982, 27: 735-736.
22. 王越.新型氧氣濕化裝置在老年科患者中的應用及效果觀察.齊魯護理雜志, 2012, 18(7): 12-13.
23. 鄒燈秀, 李秀云, 徐敏.氧氣濕化液污染與呼吸道感染相關性研究進展.護理學雜志, 2007, 22(19): 74-76．.
24. 朱金英, 徐佳.新型一次性氧氣濕化輸送裝置的臨床應用.護理研究, 2011, 25(19): 1784-1785.

Previous Article
Efficacy and Safety of Coenzyme Q10 for Idiopathic Oligoasthenoteratozoospermia: A Meta-analysis
Next Article
Ten Years Reform of Simplified DRG-based Hospital Payment System:A Systematic Review

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Clinical Effects of Non-humidified versus Humidified Low-to-moderate Flow Oxygen Inhalation Therapy via Nasal Cannula: A Systematic Review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content