Burns Karen E A, Meade Maureen O, Premji Azra, Adhikari Neill K J
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. 2013 Dec 9;2013(12):CD004127. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004127.pub3.
Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) provides ventilatory support without the need for an invasive airway. Interest has emerged in using NPPV to facilitate earlier removal of an endotracheal tube and to decrease complications associated with prolonged intubation.
We evaluated studies in which invasively ventilated adults with respiratory failure of any cause (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), non-COPD, postoperative, nonoperative) were weaned by means of early extubation followed by immediate application of NPPV or continued IPPV weaning. The primary objective was to determine whether the noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) strategy reduced all-cause mortality compared with invasive positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) weaning. Secondary objectives were to ascertain differences between strategies in proportions of weaning failure and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), total duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical support related to weaning, duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (ETMV), frequency of adverse events (related to weaning) and overall quality of life. We planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess (1) the influence on mortality and VAP of excluding quasi-randomized trials, and (2) effects on mortality and weaning failure associated with different causes of respiratory failure (COPD vs. mixed populations).
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013), proceedings from four conferences, trial registration websites and personal files; we contacted authors to identify trials comparing NPPV versus conventional IPPV weaning.
Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing early extubation with immediate application of NPPV versus 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 assessed (1) the impact of excluding quasi-randomized trials, and (2) the effects on selected outcomes noted with different causes of respiratory failure.
We identified 16 trials, predominantly of moderate to good quality, involving 994 participants, most with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared with IPPV weaning, NPPV weaning significantly decreased mortality. The benefits for mortality were significantly greater in trials enrolling exclusively participants with COPD (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.56) versus mixed populations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.40). NPPV significantly reduced weaning failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.43); shortened length of stay in an intensive care unit (mean difference (MD) -5.59 days, 95% CI -7.90 to -3.28) and in hospital (MD -6.04 days, 95% CI -9.22 to -2.87); and decreased the total duration of ventilation (MD -5.64 days, 95% CI -9.50 to -1.77) and the duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (MD - 7.44 days, 95% CI -10.34 to -4.55) amidst significant heterogeneity. Noninvasive weaning also significantly reduced tracheostomy (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47) and reintubation (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97) rates. Noninvasive weaning had no effect on the duration of ventilation related to weaning. Exclusion of a single quasi-randomized trial did not alter these results. Subgroup analyses suggest that the benefits for mortality were significantly greater in trials enrolling exclusively participants with COPD versus mixed populations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Summary estimates from 16 trials of moderate to good quality that included predominantly participants with COPD suggest that a weaning strategy that includes NPPV may reduce rates of mortality and ventilator-associated pneumonia without increasing the risk of weaning failure or reintubation.
无创正压通气(NPPV)无需建立有创气道即可提供通气支持。人们开始关注使用NPPV来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。
我们评估了一些研究,这些研究中因任何原因(慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)、非COPD、术后、非手术)导致呼吸衰竭的有创通气成人患者,通过早期拔管后立即应用NPPV或继续进行有创正压通气(IPPV)撤机。主要目的是确定与有创正压通气(IPPV)撤机相比,无创正压通气(NPPV)策略是否能降低全因死亡率。次要目的是确定两种策略在撤机失败率、呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP)、重症监护病房(ICU)和医院住院时间(LOS)、机械通气总时长、与撤机相关的机械支持时长、气管内机械通气(ETMV)时长、不良事件(与撤机相关)发生率以及总体生活质量方面的差异。我们计划进行敏感性分析和亚组分析,以评估(1)排除半随机试验对死亡率和VAP的影响,以及(2)不同呼吸衰竭病因(COPD与混合人群)对死亡率和撤机失败的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》,2013年第5期)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2013年5月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2013年5月)、四个会议的论文集、试验注册网站以及个人文件;我们联系了作者以识别比较NPPV与传统IPPV撤机的试验。
比较早期拔管后立即应用NPPV与IPPV撤机的随机和半随机试验,纳入对象为有创通气的呼吸衰竭成人患者。
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。敏感性分析和亚组分析评估了(1)排除半随机试验的影响,以及(2)不同呼吸衰竭病因对选定结局的影响。
我们识别出16项试验,质量大多为中等至良好,涉及994名参与者,其中大多数患有慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)。与IPPV撤机相比,NPPV撤机显著降低了死亡率。在仅纳入COPD患者的试验中,死亡率获益显著更大(风险比(RR)0.36,95%置信区间(CI)0.24至0.56),而在混合人群试验中(RR 0.81,95%CI 0.47至1.40)。NPPV显著降低了撤机失败率(RR 0.63,95%CI 0.42至0.96)和呼吸机相关性肺炎(RR 0.25,95%CI 0.15至0.43);缩短了重症监护病房住院时长(平均差(MD)-5.59天,95%CI -7.90至-3.28)和医院住院时长(MD -6.04天,95%CI -9.22至-2.87);并减少了通气总时长(MD -5.64天,95%CI -9.50至-1.77)以及气管内机械通气时长(MD -7.44天,95%CI -10.34至-4.55),尽管存在显著异质性。无创撤机还显著降低了气管切开率(RR 0.19,95%CI 0.08至0.47)和再次插管率(RR 0.65,95%CI 0.44至0.97)。无创撤机对与撤机相关的通气时长没有影响。排除一项半随机试验并未改变这些结果。亚组分析表明,在仅纳入COPD患者的试验中,死亡率获益显著大于混合人群试验。
来自16项质量中等至良好的试验的汇总估计,这些试验主要纳入了COPD患者,表明包含NPPV的撤机策略可能降低死亡率和呼吸机相关性肺炎发生率,而不会增加撤机失败或再次插管的风险。