Cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes comparison between noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula use...

Patients with multiple rib fractures often require advanced respiratory support to prevent intubation and associated morbidity. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) are commonly used, but direct comparisons of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain limited. This study aimed to compare NIV versus HFNC using a large, nationwide US database.

This retrospective cohort study used the 2020-2021 National Inpatient Sample database to identify adult trauma patients (18-89 years) with two or more rib fractures who received either NIV or HFNC without prior intubation. To focus on isolated thoracic injuries, patients with significant injuries elsewhere (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) or who died within 24 hours were excluded. Inverse probability of treatment of weighting was used to balance patient characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, and injury severity. Primary outcomes included mortality, tracheostomy, pulmonary complications, and intubation rates. Hospital length of stay and total costs were also assessed. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with intubation avoidance as the effectiveness measure, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000 per effectiveness unit was used.

After adjustment, the NIV group demonstrated significantly better outcomes compared with HFNC, including lower mortality (11.4% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.007) and tracheostomy (1.2% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.006), and fewer pulmonary complications. Although intubation rates were not statistically different (12.0% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.085), the HFNC group had longer length of stay (13 vs. 10 days, p < 0.001) and incurred higher costs (US $42,505 vs. US $32,024, p < 0.001). Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that NIV dominated HFNC, yielding better outcomes at lower costs.

Among patients with multiple rib fractures, NIV yielded superior clinical outcomes, shortened hospital stays, and reduced costs compared with HFNC. These findings suggest that NIV may be a more cost-effective and clinically advantageous choice.

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.