早产儿无创通气中的 RAM 管与短双鼻孔插管:最新的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Indian Journal of Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1007/s12098-024-05211-0
Jogender Kumar, Jitendra Meena, Pradeep Debata, Venkataseshan Sundaram, Sourabh Dutta, Praveen Kumar
{"title":"早产儿无创通气中的 RAM 管与短双鼻孔插管:最新的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。","authors":"Jogender Kumar, Jitendra Meena, Pradeep Debata, Venkataseshan Sundaram, Sourabh Dutta, Praveen Kumar","doi":"10.1007/s12098-024-05211-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of RAM cannula with short binasal prongs (SBPs) as nasal interfaces in preterm infants requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) and trial registries from inception until March 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the RAM cannula with SBP for delivering nCPAP/NIPPV. They performed a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was failure of nCPAP/NIPPV. Secondary outcomes included nasal injury, mechanical ventilation, air leaks, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs (825 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in nCPAP/NIPPV failure (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.87) or the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.01) between the RAM cannula and SBP groups (low to very low certainty). Compared with infants in the SBP group, those in the RAM cannula group had a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury [(5 RCTs, 825 participants; RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66); low certainty] and any nasal injury [(RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.76; very low certainty)]. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In comparison to SBP, the RAM cannula may have little to no effect on nCPAP/NIPPV failure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the use of RAM cannula possibly results in reduction in moderate to severe nasal trauma in preterm infants receiving nCPAP/NIPPV.</p>","PeriodicalId":13320,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"1075-1084"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jogender Kumar, Jitendra Meena, Pradeep Debata, Venkataseshan Sundaram, Sourabh Dutta, Praveen Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12098-024-05211-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of RAM cannula with short binasal prongs (SBPs) as nasal interfaces in preterm infants requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) and trial registries from inception until March 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the RAM cannula with SBP for delivering nCPAP/NIPPV. They performed a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was failure of nCPAP/NIPPV. Secondary outcomes included nasal injury, mechanical ventilation, air leaks, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs (825 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in nCPAP/NIPPV failure (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.87) or the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.01) between the RAM cannula and SBP groups (low to very low certainty). Compared with infants in the SBP group, those in the RAM cannula group had a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury [(5 RCTs, 825 participants; RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66); low certainty] and any nasal injury [(RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.76; very low certainty)]. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In comparison to SBP, the RAM cannula may have little to no effect on nCPAP/NIPPV failure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the use of RAM cannula possibly results in reduction in moderate to severe nasal trauma in preterm infants receiving nCPAP/NIPPV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1075-1084\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-024-05211-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-024-05211-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较在需要鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)或鼻间歇正压通气(NIPPV)的早产儿中使用 RAM 插管和短双鼻孔插管(SBP)作为鼻腔接口的有效性和安全性:作者检索了从开始到 2024 年 3 月 15 日的电子数据库(Medline、Embase 和 Web of Science)和试验登记册,以寻找在提供 nCPAP/NIPPV 时比较 RAM 插管和 SBP 的随机对照试验 (RCT)。他们使用 RevMan 5.4 软件进行了随机效应荟萃分析。主要结果是 nCPAP/NIPPV 失败。次要结果包括鼻损伤、机械通气、漏气和死亡率:结果:共纳入了五项 RCT(825 名参与者)。RAM 插管组和 SBP 组之间在 nCPAP/NIPPV 失败率(RR:1.04;95% CI:0.58 至 1.87)或有创机械通气需求(RR:1.23;95% CI:0.75 至 2.01)方面没有明显差异(确定性低至非常低)。与 SBP 组婴儿相比,RAM 插管组婴儿的中度至重度鼻损伤[(5 项 RCT,825 名参与者;RR:0.34;95% CI:0.18 至 0.66);低确定性]和任何鼻损伤[(RR:0.44;95% CI:0.26 至 0.76;极低确定性)]发生率明显较低。其他临床结果无明显差异:结论:与 SBP 相比,RAM 插管对 nCPAP/NIPPV 失效可能几乎没有影响,但证据非常不确定。低确定性证据表明,使用 RAM 插管可能会减少接受 nCPAP/NIPPV 的早产儿的中度至重度鼻腔创伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

RAM Cannula versus Short Binasal Prongs for Non-invasive Ventilation in Preterm Infants: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of RAM cannula with short binasal prongs (SBPs) as nasal interfaces in preterm infants requiring nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).

Methods: The authors searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Web of Science) and trial registries from inception until March 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the RAM cannula with SBP for delivering nCPAP/NIPPV. They performed a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was failure of nCPAP/NIPPV. Secondary outcomes included nasal injury, mechanical ventilation, air leaks, and mortality.

Results: Five RCTs (825 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in nCPAP/NIPPV failure (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.87) or the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.75 to 2.01) between the RAM cannula and SBP groups (low to very low certainty). Compared with infants in the SBP group, those in the RAM cannula group had a significantly lower incidence of moderate to severe nasal injury [(5 RCTs, 825 participants; RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66); low certainty] and any nasal injury [(RR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.76; very low certainty)]. There was no significant difference in the other clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: In comparison to SBP, the RAM cannula may have little to no effect on nCPAP/NIPPV failure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the use of RAM cannula possibly results in reduction in moderate to severe nasal trauma in preterm infants receiving nCPAP/NIPPV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Indian Journal of Pediatrics
Indian Journal of Pediatrics 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
7.00%
发文量
394
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Pediatrics (IJP), is an official publication of the Dr. K.C. Chaudhuri Foundation. The Journal, a peer-reviewed publication, is published twelve times a year on a monthly basis (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December), and publishes clinical and basic research of all aspects of pediatrics, provided they have scientific merit and represent an important advance in knowledge. The Journal publishes original articles, review articles, case reports which provide new information, letters in relation to published articles, scientific research letters and picture of the month, announcements (meetings, courses, job advertisements); summary report of conferences and book reviews.
×
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