Burns Karen Ea, Adhikari Neill Kj, Keenan Sean P, Meade Maureen O
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care and the University of Toronto, Keenan Research Centre/Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, 30, Bond Street, Rm 4-045 Queen Wing, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 1WB.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Aug 4(8):CD004127. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004127.pub2.
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) provides ventilatory support without the need for an invasive airway approach. Interest has emerged in using NPPV to facilitate earlier removal of an endotracheal tube and decrease complications associated with prolonged intubation.
To summarize the evidence comparing NPPV and invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) weaning on clinical outcomes in intubated adults with respiratory failure.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2008), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2008), proceedings from four conferences, and personal files; and contacted authors to identify randomized controlled trials comparing NPPV and IPPV weaning.
Randomized and quasi-randomized studies comparing early extubation with immediate application of NPPV to IPPV weaning in intubated adults with respiratory failure.
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted data according to prespecified criteria. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were planned to assess the impact of (i) excluding quasi-randomized trials, and (ii) the etiology of respiratory failure on selected outcomes.
We identified 12 trials of moderate to good quality that involved 530 participants with predominantly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared to the IPPV strategy, NPPV significantly decreased mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.79), ventilator associated pneumonia (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45), length of stay in an intensive care unit (weighted mean difference (WMD) -6.27 days, 95% CI -8.77 to -3.78) and hospital (WMD -7.19 days, 95% CI -10.80 to -3.58), total duration of ventilation (WVD) -5.64 days (95% CI -9.50 to -1.77) and duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (WMD - 7.81 days, 95% CI -11.31 to -4.31). Noninvasive weaning had no effect on weaning failures or the duration of ventilation related to weaning. Excluding a single quasi-randomized trial maintained the significant reduction in mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. Subgroup analyses suggested that the benefits on mortality and weaning failures were nonsignificantly greater in trials enrolling exclusively COPD patients versus mixed populations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Summary estimates from 12 small studies of moderate to good quality that included predominantly COPD patients demonstrated a consistent, positive effect on mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia. The net clinical benefits associated with noninvasive weaning remain to be fully elucidated.
无创正压通气(NPPV)无需侵入性气道途径即可提供通气支持。使用NPPV促进早期拔除气管插管并减少与长时间插管相关的并发症的兴趣日益浓厚。
总结比较NPPV和有创正压通气(IPPV)撤机对呼吸衰竭成年插管患者临床结局的证据。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》,2008年第2期)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2008年4月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2008年4月)、四个会议的会议记录以及个人文件;并联系作者以识别比较NPPV和IPPV撤机的随机对照试验。
比较呼吸衰竭成年插管患者早期拔管并立即应用NPPV与IPPV撤机的随机和半随机研究。
两位综述作者根据预先设定的标准独立评估试验质量并提取数据。计划进行敏感性和亚组分析,以评估(i)排除半随机试验,以及(ii)呼吸衰竭病因对选定结局的影响。
我们确定了12项质量中等至良好的试验,涉及530名主要患有慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的参与者。与IPPV策略相比,NPPV显著降低了死亡率(相对风险(RR)0.55,95%置信区间(CI)0.38至0.79)、呼吸机相关性肺炎(RR 0.29,95%CI 0.19至0.45)、重症监护病房住院时间(加权平均差(WMD)-6.27天,95%CI -8.77至-3.78)和医院住院时间(WMD -7.19天,95%CI -10.80至-3.58)、总通气时间(WVD)-5.64天(95%CI -9.50至-1.77)以及气管内机械通气时间(WMD -7.81天,95%CI -11.31至-4.31)。无创撤机对撤机失败或与撤机相关的通气时间没有影响。排除一项半随机试验后,死亡率和呼吸机相关性肺炎仍显著降低。亚组分析表明,与混合人群相比,仅纳入COPD患者的试验在死亡率和撤机失败方面的益处虽无显著差异,但稍大。
来自12项质量中等至良好的小型研究(主要包括COPD患者)的汇总估计显示,对死亡率和呼吸机相关性肺炎有一致的积极影响。与无创撤机相关的净临床益处仍有待充分阐明。