高流量鼻插管与无创正压通气在急性缺氧呼吸衰竭中的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Dipayan Chaudhuri, Vatsal Trivedi, Kimberley Lewis, Bram Rochwerg
{"title":"高流量鼻插管与无创正压通气在急性缺氧呼吸衰竭中的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Dipayan Chaudhuri,&nbsp;Vatsal Trivedi,&nbsp;Kimberley Lewis,&nbsp;Bram Rochwerg","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) when compared with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and the international Health Technology Assessment database from inception to September 14, 2022.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included randomized control studies that compared HFNC to NIPPV in adult patients with AHRF. For clinical outcomes, we included only parallel group and crossover randomized control trials (RCTs). For economic outcomes, we included any study design that evaluated cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost benefit analyses.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Clinical outcomes of interest included intubation, mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and patient-reported dyspnea. Economic outcomes of interest included costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We included nine RCTs (<i>n</i> = 1,539 patients) and one cost-effectiveness study. Compared with NIPPV, HFNC may have no effect on the need for intubation (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; low certainty) and an uncertain effect on mortality (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59-1.21; very low certainty). In subgroup analysis, NIPPV delivered through the helmet interface-as opposed to the facemask interface-may reduce intubation compared with HFNC (<i>p</i> = 0.006; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). There was no difference in ICU or hospital LOS (both low certainty) and an uncertain effect on patient-reported dyspnea (very low certainty). We could make no conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with NIPPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HFNC and NIPPV may be similarly effective at reducing the need for intubation with an uncertain effect on mortality in hospitalized patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. More research evaluating different interfaces in varying clinical contexts is needed to improve generalizability and precision of findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 4","pages":"e0892"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/79/a6/cc9-5-e0892.PMC10060083.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Dipayan Chaudhuri,&nbsp;Vatsal Trivedi,&nbsp;Kimberley Lewis,&nbsp;Bram Rochwerg\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) when compared with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and the international Health Technology Assessment database from inception to September 14, 2022.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included randomized control studies that compared HFNC to NIPPV in adult patients with AHRF. For clinical outcomes, we included only parallel group and crossover randomized control trials (RCTs). For economic outcomes, we included any study design that evaluated cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost benefit analyses.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Clinical outcomes of interest included intubation, mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and patient-reported dyspnea. Economic outcomes of interest included costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We included nine RCTs (<i>n</i> = 1,539 patients) and one cost-effectiveness study. Compared with NIPPV, HFNC may have no effect on the need for intubation (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; low certainty) and an uncertain effect on mortality (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59-1.21; very low certainty). In subgroup analysis, NIPPV delivered through the helmet interface-as opposed to the facemask interface-may reduce intubation compared with HFNC (<i>p</i> = 0.006; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). There was no difference in ICU or hospital LOS (both low certainty) and an uncertain effect on patient-reported dyspnea (very low certainty). We could make no conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with NIPPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HFNC and NIPPV may be similarly effective at reducing the need for intubation with an uncertain effect on mortality in hospitalized patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. More research evaluating different interfaces in varying clinical contexts is needed to improve generalizability and precision of findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"e0892\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/79/a6/cc9-5-e0892.PMC10060083.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000892\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评价高流量鼻插管(HFNC)与无创正压通气(NIPPV)在急性缺氧呼吸衰竭(AHRF)患者中的疗效和成本效益。数据来源:我们对MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆和国际卫生技术评估数据库进行了全面的检索,检索时间从成立到2022年9月14日。研究选择:我们纳入了比较成年AHRF患者HFNC和NIPPV的随机对照研究。对于临床结果,我们只纳入了平行组和交叉随机对照试验(rct)。对于经济结果,我们纳入了任何评估成本效益、成本效用或成本效益分析的研究设计。数据提取:关注的临床结局包括插管、死亡率、ICU和住院时间(LOS)以及患者报告的呼吸困难。利益的经济结果包括成本、成本效益和成本效用。资料综合:我们纳入了9项随机对照试验(n = 1539例患者)和1项成本-效果研究。与NIPPV相比,HFNC可能对插管需求没有影响(相对危险度[RR], 0.93;95% ci, 0.69-1.27;低确定性)和对死亡率的不确定影响(RR, 0.84;95% ci, 0.59-1.21;非常低的确定性)。在亚组分析中,与HFNC相比,通过头盔接口而不是面罩接口输送NIPPV可以减少插管(p = 0.006;中等信度的亚群效应)。ICU和医院的LOS无差异(均为低确定性),对患者报告的呼吸困难的影响也不确定(非常低确定性)。与NIPPV相比,HFNC的成本-效果我们无法得出结论。结论:HFNC和NIPPV在减少低氧性呼吸衰竭住院患者的插管需求方面可能同样有效,但对死亡率的影响尚不确定。需要更多的研究来评估不同临床背景下的不同界面,以提高结果的普遍性和准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) when compared with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF).

Data sources: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane library, and the international Health Technology Assessment database from inception to September 14, 2022.

Study selection: We included randomized control studies that compared HFNC to NIPPV in adult patients with AHRF. For clinical outcomes, we included only parallel group and crossover randomized control trials (RCTs). For economic outcomes, we included any study design that evaluated cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost benefit analyses.

Data extraction: Clinical outcomes of interest included intubation, mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and patient-reported dyspnea. Economic outcomes of interest included costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility.

Data synthesis: We included nine RCTs (n = 1,539 patients) and one cost-effectiveness study. Compared with NIPPV, HFNC may have no effect on the need for intubation (relative risk [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; low certainty) and an uncertain effect on mortality (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59-1.21; very low certainty). In subgroup analysis, NIPPV delivered through the helmet interface-as opposed to the facemask interface-may reduce intubation compared with HFNC (p = 0.006; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). There was no difference in ICU or hospital LOS (both low certainty) and an uncertain effect on patient-reported dyspnea (very low certainty). We could make no conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with NIPPV.

Conclusions: HFNC and NIPPV may be similarly effective at reducing the need for intubation with an uncertain effect on mortality in hospitalized patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. More research evaluating different interfaces in varying clinical contexts is needed to improve generalizability and precision of findings.

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
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