High Flow Nasal Cannula for Weaning Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Neonatology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1159/000536464
Yasser Balhareth, Abdul Razak
{"title":"High Flow Nasal Cannula for Weaning Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yasser Balhareth, Abdul Razak","doi":"10.1159/000536464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study was to systematically review the benefits and harms of using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for weaning continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support in preterm infants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 15, 2023. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing weaning CPAP using HFNC versus weaning CPAP alone and evaluating predefined outcomes were included. Two authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane GRADE.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 843 identified records, seven RCTs involving 781 preterm infants were eligible for analysis. The meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in duration of respiratory support when using HFNC for weaning compared to weaning CPAP alone (mean difference (95% confidence interval) 3.52 (-0.02, 7.05); 5 RCTs; participants = 488; I2 = 29%). The evidence certainty was downgraded to low due to study limitations and imprecision. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, except for a lower occurrence of nasal trauma with HFNC for weaning CPAP compared to weaning CPAP alone (relative risk (95% confidence interval) 0.61 (0.38, 0.99); 4 RCTs; participants = 335; I2 = 0%). The evidence certainty for the secondary outcomes was low to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low certainty of evidence suggests using HFNC for weaning CPAP in preterm infants may not impact the duration of respiratory support. Caution is advised when considering HFNC for weaning CPAP, especially in extremely preterm infants, until additional supportive evidence on its safety becomes available.</p>","PeriodicalId":94152,"journal":{"name":"Neonatology","volume":" ","pages":"359-369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151992/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neonatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000536464","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to systematically review the benefits and harms of using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for weaning continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) support in preterm infants.

Methods: Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 15, 2023. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing weaning CPAP using HFNC versus weaning CPAP alone and evaluating predefined outcomes were included. Two authors independently performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane GRADE.

Results: Among 843 identified records, seven RCTs involving 781 preterm infants were eligible for analysis. The meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in duration of respiratory support when using HFNC for weaning compared to weaning CPAP alone (mean difference (95% confidence interval) 3.52 (-0.02, 7.05); 5 RCTs; participants = 488; I2 = 29%). The evidence certainty was downgraded to low due to study limitations and imprecision. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes, except for a lower occurrence of nasal trauma with HFNC for weaning CPAP compared to weaning CPAP alone (relative risk (95% confidence interval) 0.61 (0.38, 0.99); 4 RCTs; participants = 335; I2 = 0%). The evidence certainty for the secondary outcomes was low to very low.

Conclusion: Low certainty of evidence suggests using HFNC for weaning CPAP in preterm infants may not impact the duration of respiratory support. Caution is advised when considering HFNC for weaning CPAP, especially in extremely preterm infants, until additional supportive evidence on its safety becomes available.

用于早产儿鼻持续正压通气断奶的高流量鼻导管:系统综述与元分析》。
简介:本研究旨在系统回顾早产儿使用高流量鼻插管(HFNC)断开持续气道正压(CPAP)支持的利弊:方法:检索了从开始到 2023 年 7 月 15 日的 Cochrane Central、EMBASE、Medline 和 Web of Science。纳入的随机临床试验(RCT)比较了使用 HFNC 的 CPAP 断奶与单独使用 CPAP 断奶,并评估了预定义的结果。两位作者独立进行了数据提取和方法学质量评估。采用随机效应模型进行 Meta 分析,并使用 Cochrane GRADE 评估证据的确定性:在已确定的 843 份记录中,有 7 项涉及 781 名早产儿的研究符合分析条件。荟萃分析发现,与单独使用 CPAP 断奶相比,使用 HFNC 断奶时呼吸支持持续时间的差异无统计学意义(平均差异(95% 置信区间)为 3.52 (-0.02, 7.05);5 项 RCT;参与者 = 488;I2 = 29%)。由于研究的局限性和不精确性,证据确定性被降为低。次要结果方面无明显差异,但与单独使用 CPAP 断流相比,使用高频NCN 断流时鼻腔创伤发生率较低(相对风险(95% 置信区间)为 0.61 (0.38, 0.99);4 项研究;参与者 = 335;I2 = 0%)。次要结果的证据确定性较低至很低:低证据确定性表明,早产儿使用 HFNC 断开 CPAP 可能不会影响呼吸支持的持续时间。建议在获得更多有关其安全性的支持性证据之前,谨慎考虑将 HFNC 用于 CPAP 断奶,尤其是极早产儿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信