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.	刘新民.中华医学百科大辞海第1卷内科学.北京:军事医学科学出版社, 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.基础护理学.第5版.北京:人民卫生出版社, 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.	李转珍, 刘瑞卿, 尤炎丽, 等.无湿化中低流量吸氧预防心血管疾病患者肺部感染的临床研究.中华医院感染学杂志, 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.循证护理学.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2012: 81-82.
8.	杨婷, 邰春梅, 未经湿化的中低流量给氧在急诊抢救患者中的应用分析.中国医药指南, 2015, 13(9): 153-154.
9.	岳新霞, 何江渝, 常琦.常规湿化与未湿化低流量吸氧的临床效果及不适反应比较.解放军护理杂志, 2015, 32(5): 25-28.
10.	夏利华, 古满平, 张克标, 等.非湿化低流量氧疗对AECOPD患者舒适度的影响.护理学杂志, 2014, 29(15): 50-51.
11.	王庆芳, 韩婷.非湿化中低流量吸氧导管在慢性肺心病患者护理中的应用.国际护理学杂志, 2014, 33(2): 469-471.
12.	袁志萍, 朱莉, 张秋香.未湿化中低流量双鼻导管吸氧的临床观察及分析.当代护士·学术版, 2013(12): 125-126.
13.	田芳, 杨碧芳, 黄素风, 等.无湿化中低流量吸氧在深圳地区的应用研究.护理研究, 2013, 27(4): 997-999.
14.	陈小英, 黄贵奇, 彭冬琳, 等.中低流量双鼻塞吸氧湿化与未湿化对患者呼吸道症状的影响.实用临床医学, 2012, 13(3): 119-120.
15.	李珑, 王伟, 王根妹, 等.湿化与未湿化中低流量鼻导管吸氧患者呼吸道症状的观察.中华护理杂志, 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, 陈湘玉.经鼻无湿化持续中低流量吸氧效果的系统评价.中国护理管理, 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.新型氧气湿化装置在老年科患者中的应用及效果观察.齐鲁护理杂志, 2012, 18(7): 12-13.
23.	邹灯秀, 李秀云, 徐敏.氧气湿化液污染与呼吸道感染相关性研究进展.护理学杂志, 2007, 22(19): 74-76．.
24.	朱金英, 徐佳.新型一次性氧气湿化输送装置的临床应用.护理研究, 2011, 25(19): 1784-1785.

1. 刘新民.中华医学百科大辞海第1卷内科学.北京:军事医学科学出版社, 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.基础护理学.第5版.北京:人民卫生出版社, 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. 李转珍, 刘瑞卿, 尤炎丽, 等.无湿化中低流量吸氧预防心血管疾病患者肺部感染的临床研究.中华医院感染学杂志, 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.循证护理学.北京:人民卫生出版社, 2012: 81-82.
8. 杨婷, 邰春梅, 未经湿化的中低流量给氧在急诊抢救患者中的应用分析.中国医药指南, 2015, 13(9): 153-154.
9. 岳新霞, 何江渝, 常琦.常规湿化与未湿化低流量吸氧的临床效果及不适反应比较.解放军护理杂志, 2015, 32(5): 25-28.
10. 夏利华, 古满平, 张克标, 等.非湿化低流量氧疗对AECOPD患者舒适度的影响.护理学杂志, 2014, 29(15): 50-51.
11. 王庆芳, 韩婷.非湿化中低流量吸氧导管在慢性肺心病患者护理中的应用.国际护理学杂志, 2014, 33(2): 469-471.
12. 袁志萍, 朱莉, 张秋香.未湿化中低流量双鼻导管吸氧的临床观察及分析.当代护士·学术版, 2013(12): 125-126.
13. 田芳, 杨碧芳, 黄素风, 等.无湿化中低流量吸氧在深圳地区的应用研究.护理研究, 2013, 27(4): 997-999.
14. 陈小英, 黄贵奇, 彭冬琳, 等.中低流量双鼻塞吸氧湿化与未湿化对患者呼吸道症状的影响.实用临床医学, 2012, 13(3): 119-120.
15. 李珑, 王伟, 王根妹, 等.湿化与未湿化中低流量鼻导管吸氧患者呼吸道症状的观察.中华护理杂志, 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, 陈湘玉.经鼻无湿化持续中低流量吸氧效果的系统评价.中国护理管理, 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.新型氧气湿化装置在老年科患者中的应用及效果观察.齐鲁护理杂志, 2012, 18(7): 12-13.
23. 邹灯秀, 李秀云, 徐敏.氧气湿化液污染与呼吸道感染相关性研究进展.护理学杂志, 2007, 22(19): 74-76．.
24. 朱金英, 徐佳.新型一次性氧气湿化输送装置的临床应用.护理研究, 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