Association Between Delivery Room Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Neonatal Outcomes in Late Preterm and Term Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Journal of paediatrics and child health Pub Date : 2026-09-27 Epub Date: 2026-07-28 DOI:10.1111/jpc.70516
Yoxin Chin, Maclean Hill, Arun Sett, Niranjan Thomas, Abdul Razak
{"title":"Association Between Delivery Room Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Neonatal Outcomes in Late Preterm and Term Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Yoxin Chin,&nbsp;Maclean Hill,&nbsp;Arun Sett,&nbsp;Niranjan Thomas,&nbsp;Abdul Razak","doi":"10.1111/jpc.70516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To explore the effects of delivery room continuous positive airway pressure (DR-CPAP) in late preterm and term infants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Sources</h3>\n \n <p>Cochrane Library, Embase, Emcare and MEDLINE were searched through March 26, 2025.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Eligibility Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Observational studies and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes in infants receiving DR-CPAP versus no DR-CPAP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed per Cochrane guidelines, and certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome</h3>\n \n <p>Pneumothorax.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Seven studies (five non-randomised, two RCTs) involving 135 472 infants were included. In observational data, DR-CPAP was associated with a significant increased risk of pneumothorax (unadjusted OR: 45.79; 95% CI: 31.47–66.63; <i>moderate certainty</i>; adjusted OR: 24.18; 95% CI: 2.32–251.63; <i>moderate certainty</i>). RCTs reported no pneumothorax events in both groups, preventing meta-analytic estimation. DR-CPAP was also associated with increased use of surfactant in observational studies (OR: 5.68; 95% CI: 2.97–10.86; <i>very low certainty</i>). For neonatal intensive care unit admissions, DR-CPAP was associated with significantly higher odds in observational studies (OR: 14.56; 95% CI: 13.27–15.98; <i>moderate certainty</i>), but significantly lower odds in RCTs (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09–0.63; <i>very low certainty</i>).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>DR-CPAP was associated with potential harm in observational studies, though confounding cannot be excluded. Evidence from RCTs remains limited, and is of very low certainty. Well-designed, robust clinical studies are urgently needed to guide practice.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16648,"journal":{"name":"Journal of paediatrics and child health","volume":"62 9","pages":"1585-1594"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jpc.70516","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of paediatrics and child health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpc.70516","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To explore the effects of delivery room continuous positive airway pressure (DR-CPAP) in late preterm and term infants.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources

Cochrane Library, Embase, Emcare and MEDLINE were searched through March 26, 2025.

Eligibility Criteria

Observational studies and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes in infants receiving DR-CPAP versus no DR-CPAP.

Methods

Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed per Cochrane guidelines, and certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE framework.

Main Outcome

Pneumothorax.

Results

Seven studies (five non-randomised, two RCTs) involving 135 472 infants were included. In observational data, DR-CPAP was associated with a significant increased risk of pneumothorax (unadjusted OR: 45.79; 95% CI: 31.47–66.63; moderate certainty; adjusted OR: 24.18; 95% CI: 2.32–251.63; moderate certainty). RCTs reported no pneumothorax events in both groups, preventing meta-analytic estimation. DR-CPAP was also associated with increased use of surfactant in observational studies (OR: 5.68; 95% CI: 2.97–10.86; very low certainty). For neonatal intensive care unit admissions, DR-CPAP was associated with significantly higher odds in observational studies (OR: 14.56; 95% CI: 13.27–15.98; moderate certainty), but significantly lower odds in RCTs (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09–0.63; very low certainty).

Conclusions

DR-CPAP was associated with potential harm in observational studies, though confounding cannot be excluded. Evidence from RCTs remains limited, and is of very low certainty. Well-designed, robust clinical studies are urgently needed to guide practice.

产房持续气道正压通气与晚期早产儿和足月儿新生儿结局的关系:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:探讨产房持续气道正压通气(DR-CPAP)在晚期早产儿和足月儿中的应用效果。设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。数据来源:Cochrane Library, Embase, Emcare和MEDLINE检索截止到2025年3月26日。资格标准:观察性研究和随机临床试验(rct)比较接受DR-CPAP和未接受DR-CPAP的婴儿的结局。方法:采用随机效应模型进行meta分析,计算合并优势比(ORs)和95%置信区间(ci)。根据Cochrane指南评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE框架对证据的确定性进行分级。主要结局:气胸。结果:纳入了7项研究(5项非随机对照试验,2项随机对照试验),涉及134572名婴儿。在观察性数据中,DR-CPAP与气胸风险显著增加相关(未校正OR: 45.79; 95% CI: 31.47-66.63;中等确定性;校正OR: 24.18; 95% CI: 2.32-251.63;中等确定性)。随机对照试验报告两组均未发生气胸事件,因此无法进行meta分析估计。在观察性研究中,DR-CPAP也与表面活性剂的使用增加有关(OR: 5.68; 95% CI: 2.97-10.86;非常低的确定性)。对于新生儿重症监护病房入院,在观察性研究中,DR-CPAP与显著较高的几率相关(OR: 14.56; 95% CI: 13.27-15.98;中等确定性),但在随机对照试验中,与显著较低的几率相关(OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63;极低确定性)。结论:在观察性研究中,DR-CPAP与潜在危害相关,但不能排除混杂因素。来自随机对照试验的证据仍然有限,而且确定性很低。迫切需要精心设计的、强有力的临床研究来指导实践。
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
2.90
自引率
5.90%
发文量
487
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health publishes original research articles of scientific excellence in paediatrics and child health. Research Articles, Case Reports and Letters to the Editor are published, together with invited Reviews, Annotations, Editorial Comments and manuscripts of educational interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书