Keenan Sean P, Sinuff Tasnim, Cook Deborah J, Hill Nicholas S
Department of Medicine, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, British Columbia.
Crit Care Med. 2004 Dec;32(12):2516-23. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000148011.51681.e2.
The results of studies on noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure unrelated to cardiogenic pulmonary edema have been inconsistent.
To assess the effect of NPPV on the rate of endotracheal intubation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and mortality for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure not due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema.
We searched the databases of MEDLINE (1980 to October 2003) and EMBASE (1990 to October 2003). Additional data sources included the Cochrane Library, personal files, abstract proceedings, reference lists of selected articles, and expert contact.
We included studies if a) the design was a randomized controlled trial; b) patients had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure not due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema; c) the interventions compared noninvasive ventilation and standard therapy with standard therapy alone; and d) outcomes included need for endotracheal intubation, length of intensive care unit or hospital stay, or intensive care unit or hospital survival.
In duplicate and independently, we abstracted data to evaluate methodological quality and results.
The addition of NPPV to standard care in the setting of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure reduced the rate of endotracheal intubation (absolute risk reduction 23%, 95% confidence interval 10-35%), ICU length of stay (absolute reduction 2 days, 95% confidence interval 1-3 days), and ICU mortality (absolute risk reduction 17%, 95% confidence interval 8-26%). However, trial results were significantly heterogeneous.
Randomized trials suggest that patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are less likely to require endotracheal intubation when NPPV is added to standard therapy. However, the effect on mortality is less clear, and the heterogeneity found among studies suggests that effectiveness varies among different populations. As a result, the literature does not support the routine use of NPPV in all patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
对非心源性肺水肿所致急性低氧性呼吸衰竭进行无创正压通气(NPPV)治疗的研究结果并不一致。
评估NPPV对非心源性肺水肿所致急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者气管插管率、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、医院住院时间及死亡率的影响。
我们检索了MEDLINE数据库(1980年至2003年10月)和EMBASE数据库(1990年至2003年10月)。其他数据来源包括Cochrane图书馆、个人文件、摘要汇编、所选文章的参考文献列表以及专家联系。
纳入的研究需满足以下条件:a)设计为随机对照试验;b)患者为非心源性肺水肿所致急性低氧性呼吸衰竭;c)干预措施为将无创通气与标准治疗进行比较,且与单纯标准治疗进行对照;d)结局指标包括气管插管需求、ICU或医院住院时间,或ICU或医院生存率。
我们以双份且独立的方式提取数据,以评估方法学质量和结果。
在急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的情况下,在标准治疗基础上加用NPPV可降低气管插管率(绝对风险降低23%,95%置信区间10 - 35%)、ICU住院时间(绝对减少2天,95%置信区间1 - 3天)以及ICU死亡率(绝对风险降低17%,95%置信区间8 - 26%)。然而,试验结果存在显著异质性。
随机试验表明,对于急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者,在标准治疗基础上加用NPPV时,气管插管的可能性较小。然而,对死亡率的影响尚不清楚,研究中发现的异质性表明不同人群的有效性存在差异。因此,文献并不支持对所有急性低氧性呼吸衰竭患者常规使用NPPV。