by Masaaki Sakuraya, Hiromu Okano, Tomoyuki Masuyama,
Shunsuke Kimata and Satoshi Hokari
Critical Care volume 25,
Article number: 414 (2021)
Background
Although non-invasive respiratory management strategies have
been implemented to avoid intubation, patients with de novo acute hypoxaemic
respiratory failure (AHRF) are high risk of treatment failure. In the previous
meta-analyses, the effect of non-invasive ventilation was not evaluated
according to ventilation modes in those patients. Furthermore, no meta-analyses
comparing non-invasive respiratory management strategies with invasive
mechanical ventilation (IMV) have been reported. We performed a network meta-analysis
to compare the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation according to ventilation
modes with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), standard oxygen therapy (SOT), and
IMV in adult patients with AHRF.
Methods
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE,
EMBASE, and Ichushi databases were searched. Studies including adults with AHRF
and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two different respiratory
management strategies (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), pressure
support ventilation (PSV), HFNO, SOT, or IMV) were reviewed.
Results
We included 25 RCTs (3,302 participants: 27 comparisons).
Using SOT as the reference, CPAP (risk ratio [RR] 0.55; 95% confidence interval
[CI] 0.31–0.95; very low certainty) was associated significantly with a lower
risk of mortality. Compared with SOT, PSV (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.62–1.06; low
certainty) and HFNO (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.65–1.25; very low certainty) were not
associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality. Compared with IMV, no
non-invasive respiratory management was associated with a significantly lower
risk of mortality, although all certainties of evidence were very low. The
probability of being best in reducing short-term mortality among all possible
interventions was higher for CPAP, followed by PSV and HFNO; IMV and SOT were
tied for the worst (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value: 93.2,
65.0, 44.1, 23.9, and 23.9, respectively).
Conclusions
When performing non-invasive ventilation among patients with
de novo AHRF, it is important to avoid excessive tidal volume and lung injury.
Although pressure support is needed for some of these patients, it should be
applied with caution because this may lead to excessive tidal volume and lung
injury.
No comments:
Post a Comment