Nasal continuous positive airway pressure immediately after extubation for preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jacqueline J Ho, Anna M Kidman, Brady Chua, Geoffrey Chang, Michelle Fiander, Peter G Davis
{"title":"Nasal continuous positive airway pressure immediately after extubation for preventing morbidity in preterm infants.","authors":"Jacqueline J Ho, Anna M Kidman, Brady Chua, Geoffrey Chang, Michelle Fiander, Peter G Davis","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD000143.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preterm infants who are extubated following a period of invasive ventilation via an endotracheal tube are at risk of developing respiratory failure, leading to reintubation. This may be due to apnoea, respiratory acidosis, or hypoxia. Historically, preterm infants were extubated to head box oxygen or low-flow nasal cannulae. Support with non-invasive pressure might help improve rates of successful extubation in preterm infants by stabilising the upper airway, improving lung function, and reducing apnoea. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and last updated in 2003.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine whether nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP), applied immediately after extubation of preterm infants, reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for additional ventilatory support, without clinically important adverse events.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries on 22 September 2023 using a revised strategy. We searched conference abstracts and the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>Eligible trials employed random or quasi-random allocation of preterm infants undergoing extubation. Eligible comparisons were NCPAP (delivered by any device and interface) versus head box oxygen, extubation to room air, or any other form of low-pressure supplemental oxygen. We grouped the comparators under the term no continuous positive airway pressure (no CPAP).</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis, calculating risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. For the primary outcomes that showed an effect, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included nine trials (with 726 infants) in the quantitative synthesis of this updated review. Eight studies were conducted in high-income countries between 1982 and 2005. One study was conducted in Chile, which was classified as upper-middle income at the time of the study. All studies used head box oxygen in the control arm. Risk of bias was generally low. However, due to the inherent nature of the intervention, no studies incorporated blinding. Consequently, the neonatal intensive care unit staff were aware of the assigned group for each infant, and we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias. However, we assessed blinding of the outcome assessor (detection bias) as low risk for seven studies because they used objective criteria to define both primary outcomes. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may reduce the risk of extubation failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; risk difference (RD) -0.17, 95% -0.23 to -0.10; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 10; I<sup>2</sup> = 55%; 9 studies, 726 infants; low-certainty evidence) and endotracheal reintubation (RR 0.79, 95% 0.64 to 0.98; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01; NNTB 15, 95% CI 8 to 100; I<sup>2</sup> = 65%; 9 studies; 726 infants; very low-certainty evidence), though the evidence for endotracheal reintubation is very uncertain. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may have little or no effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.15; 1 study, 92 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported neurodevelopmental outcomes.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>NCPAP may be more effective than no CPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants if applied immediately after extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain whether it can reduce the risk of reintubation or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. We have no information on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Although there is only low-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of NCPAP immediately after extubation in preterm infants, we consider there is no need for further research on this intervention, which has become standard practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD000143"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11469772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000143.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Preterm infants who are extubated following a period of invasive ventilation via an endotracheal tube are at risk of developing respiratory failure, leading to reintubation. This may be due to apnoea, respiratory acidosis, or hypoxia. Historically, preterm infants were extubated to head box oxygen or low-flow nasal cannulae. Support with non-invasive pressure might help improve rates of successful extubation in preterm infants by stabilising the upper airway, improving lung function, and reducing apnoea. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and last updated in 2003.

Objectives: To determine whether nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP), applied immediately after extubation of preterm infants, reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for additional ventilatory support, without clinically important adverse events.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries on 22 September 2023 using a revised strategy. We searched conference abstracts and the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.

Selection criteria: Eligible trials employed random or quasi-random allocation of preterm infants undergoing extubation. Eligible comparisons were NCPAP (delivered by any device and interface) versus head box oxygen, extubation to room air, or any other form of low-pressure supplemental oxygen. We grouped the comparators under the term no continuous positive airway pressure (no CPAP).

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis, calculating risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. For the primary outcomes that showed an effect, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes.

Main results: We included nine trials (with 726 infants) in the quantitative synthesis of this updated review. Eight studies were conducted in high-income countries between 1982 and 2005. One study was conducted in Chile, which was classified as upper-middle income at the time of the study. All studies used head box oxygen in the control arm. Risk of bias was generally low. However, due to the inherent nature of the intervention, no studies incorporated blinding. Consequently, the neonatal intensive care unit staff were aware of the assigned group for each infant, and we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias. However, we assessed blinding of the outcome assessor (detection bias) as low risk for seven studies because they used objective criteria to define both primary outcomes. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may reduce the risk of extubation failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; risk difference (RD) -0.17, 95% -0.23 to -0.10; NNTB 6, 95% CI 4 to 10; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 726 infants; low-certainty evidence) and endotracheal reintubation (RR 0.79, 95% 0.64 to 0.98; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01; NNTB 15, 95% CI 8 to 100; I2 = 65%; 9 studies; 726 infants; very low-certainty evidence), though the evidence for endotracheal reintubation is very uncertain. NCPAP compared with no CPAP may have little or no effect on bronchopulmonary dysplasia, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.15; 1 study, 92 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Authors' conclusions: NCPAP may be more effective than no CPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants if applied immediately after extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain whether it can reduce the risk of reintubation or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. We have no information on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Although there is only low-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of NCPAP immediately after extubation in preterm infants, we consider there is no need for further research on this intervention, which has become standard practice.

在早产儿拔管后立即进行鼻腔持续正压通气以预防发病。
背景:早产儿在通过气管插管进行有创通气一段时间后拔管,有可能出现呼吸衰竭,导致再次插管。这可能是由于呼吸暂停、呼吸性酸中毒或缺氧造成的。一直以来,早产儿都是通过头箱氧气或低流量鼻插管进行拔管。无创压力支持可稳定上气道、改善肺功能并减少呼吸暂停,从而有助于提高早产儿的成功拔管率。本文是对 1997 年首次发表、2003 年最后一次更新的一篇综述的更新:目的:确定早产儿拔管后立即使用鼻腔持续气道正压(NCPAP)是否能降低拔管失败的发生率和对额外通气支持的需求,同时不会出现临床上重要的不良事件:我们于 2023 年 9 月 22 日采用修订后的策略检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和试验登记。我们还检索了会议摘要以及纳入研究和相关系统综述的参考文献列表:符合条件的试验均采用随机或准随机方式分配接受拔管治疗的早产儿。符合条件的比较对象为 NCPAP(通过任何设备和接口提供)与头盒供氧、拔管至室内空气或任何其他形式的低压补充供氧。我们将比较者归类为无持续气道正压(无 CPAP):两位综述作者独立评估了偏倚风险,并从纳入的研究中提取了数据。在研究足够相似的情况下,我们进行了荟萃分析,计算了二分法数据的风险比 (RR) 及其 95% 置信区间 (CI)。对于显示效果的主要结果,我们计算了额外获益结果所需治疗人数(NNTB)。我们采用 GRADE 方法评估了临床重要结果的证据确定性:我们将九项试验(共 726 名婴儿)纳入了本次最新综述的定量综合研究。其中八项研究于 1982 年至 2005 年间在高收入国家进行。一项研究在智利进行,该国家在研究时被列为中上收入国家。所有研究都在对照组中使用了头箱式氧气。偏倚风险普遍较低。然而,由于干预的固有性质,没有一项研究采用了盲法。因此,新生儿重症监护室的工作人员都知道每个婴儿被分配到了哪一组,所以我们判断所有研究的表现偏倚风险都很高。不过,我们将七项研究的结果评估者盲法(检测偏倚)评定为低风险,因为这些研究使用客观标准来定义两个主要结果。与不使用 CPAP 相比,NCPAP 可降低拔管失败的风险(RR 0.62,95% CI 0.51 至 0.76;风险差异 (RD)-0.17,95% -0.23 至 -0.10;NNTB 6,95% CI 4 至 10;I2 = 55%;9 项研究,726 名婴儿;低确定性证据)和气管内重新插管的风险(RR 0.79,95% 0.64 至 0.98;RD -0.07,95% CI -0.14 至 -0.01;NNTB 15,95% CI 8 至 100;I2 = 65%;9 项研究;726 名婴儿;极低确定性证据),但气管内重新插管的证据非常不确定。NCPAP 与不使用 CPAP 相比,对支气管肺发育不良的影响可能很小或没有影响,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.89,95% CI 0.47 至 1.68;RD -0.03,95% CI -0.22 至 0.15;1 项研究,92 名婴儿;极低确定性证据)。没有研究报告了神经发育结果:如果在有创机械通气拔管后立即使用 NCPAP,可能比不使用 CPAP 更能有效预防早产儿拔管失败。我们还不确定 NCPAP 是否能降低再次插管或支气管肺发育不良的风险。我们没有关于长期神经发育结果的信息。尽管只有低确定性证据表明 NCPAP 在早产儿拔管后立即使用的有效性,但我们认为没有必要对这种已成为标准做法的干预措施进行进一步研究。
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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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