Vital Flávia M R, Saconato Humberto, Ladeira Magdaline T, Sen Ayan, Hawkes Claire A, Soares Bernardo, Burns Karen E A, Atallah Alvaro N
Muriaé Cancer Hospital , AV. Cristiano Ferreira Varella, 555, Muriaé, MG, Brazil.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16(3):CD005351. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005351.pub2.
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been widely used to alleviate signs and symptoms of respiratory distress due to cardiogenic pulmonary edema. NPPV prevents alveolar collapse and helps redistribute intra-alveolar fluid, improving pulmonary compliance and reducing the pressure of breathing.
To determine the effectiveness and safety of NPPV in the treatment of adult patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema.
We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases in April 2005: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DARE and LILACS. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies and contacted experts, equipment manufacturers, and the Cochrane Heart Group. We did not apply language restrictions.
We selected blinded or unblinded randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials, reporting on adult patients with acute or acute-on-chronic cardiogenic pulmonary edema and where NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)) and/or bilevel NPPV plus standard medical care was compared with standard medical care alone.
Two authors independently selected articles and abstracted data using a standardized data collection form. We evaluated study quality with emphasis on allocation concealment, adherence to the intention-to-treat principle and losses to follow-up.
We included 21 studies involving 1,071 participants. Compared to standard medical care, NPPV significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.84) and endotracheal intubation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83) with numbers needed to treat of 13 and 8, respectively. We found no difference in hospital length of stay with NPPV, however, intensive care unit stay was reduced by 1 day (WMD -1.07 days, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.53). Compared to standard medical care, we did not observe significant increases in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction with NPPV during (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.95) or after (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.54) its application.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NPPV, especially CPAP, in addition to standard medical care is an effective and safe intervention for the treatment of adult patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema.
无创正压通气(NPPV)已被广泛用于缓解心源性肺水肿所致的呼吸窘迫症状。NPPV可防止肺泡塌陷,并有助于重新分布肺泡内液体,改善肺顺应性并降低呼吸压力。
确定NPPV治疗成年心源性肺水肿患者的有效性和安全性。
我们于2005年4月对以下数据库进行了全面检索:Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库、循证医学数据库和拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库。我们还查阅了纳入研究的参考文献列表,并联系了专家、设备制造商和Cochrane心脏组。我们未设置语言限制。
我们选择了采用盲法或非盲法的随机或半随机临床试验,这些试验报告了成年急性或慢性加重期心源性肺水肿患者,且将NPPV(持续气道正压通气(CPAP))和/或双水平NPPV加标准药物治疗与单纯标准药物治疗进行了比较。
两位作者独立选择文章,并使用标准化数据收集表提取数据。我们评估了研究质量,并重点关注分配隐藏、对意向性分析原则的遵循情况以及失访情况。
我们纳入了21项研究,涉及1071名参与者。与标准药物治疗相比,NPPV显著降低了医院死亡率(相对危险度0.6,95%可信区间0.45至0.84)和气管插管率(相对危险度0.53,9%可信区间0.34至0.83),所需治疗人数分别为13和8。我们发现NPPV对住院时间无差异,然而,重症监护病房住院时间缩短了1天(加权均数差-1.07天,95%可信区间-1.60至-0.53)。与标准药物治疗相比,我们未观察到NPPV应用期间(相对危险度1.24,95%可信区间0.79至1.95)或应用后(相对危险度0.82,95%可信区间0.09至7.54)急性心肌梗死发生率有显著增加。
NPPV,尤其是CPAP,联合标准药物治疗是治疗成年急性心源性肺水肿患者的一种有效且安全的干预措施。