Annane Djillali, Orlikowski David, Chevret Sylvie
Critical Care Department, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, 104. Boulevard Raymond Poincaré, Garches, Ile de France, 92380, France.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 13;2014(12):CD001941. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001941.pub3.
Chronic alveolar hypoventilation is a common complication of many neuromuscular and chest wall disorders. Long-term nocturnal mechanical ventilation is commonly used to treat it. This is a 2014 update of a review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2007.
To examine the effects on mortality of nocturnal mechanical ventilation in people with neuromuscular or chest wall disorders. Subsidiary endpoints were to examine the effects of respiratory assistance on improvement of chronic hypoventilation, sleep quality, hospital admissions and quality of life.
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE on 10 June 2014. We contacted authors of identified trials and other experts in the field.
We searched for quasi-randomised or randomised controlled trials of participants of all ages with neuromuscular or chest wall disorder-related stable chronic hypoventilation of all degrees of severity, receiving any type and any mode of long-term nocturnal mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome measure was one-year mortality and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospital admission, short-term and long-term reversal of hypoventilation-related clinical symptoms and daytime hypercapnia, improvement of lung function and sleep breathing disorders.
We used standard Cochrane methodology to select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias in included studies.
The 10 eligible trials included a total of 173 participants. Roughly half of the trials were at low risk of selection, attrition or reporting bias, and almost all were at high risk of performance and detection bias. Four trials reported mortality data in the long term. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of dying was 0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.91, P value = 0.01) in favour of nocturnal mechanical ventilation compared to spontaneous breathing. There was considerable and significant heterogeneity between the trials, possibly related to differences between the study populations. Information on unplanned hospitalisation was available from two studies. The corresponding pooled RR was 0.25 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.82, P value = 0.02) in favour of nocturnal mechanical ventilation. For most of the outcome measures there was no significant long-term difference between nocturnal mechanical ventilation and no ventilation. Most of the secondary outcomes were not assessed in the eligible trials. Three out of the 10 trials, accounting for 39 participants, two with a cross-over design and one with two parallel groups, compared volume- and pressure-cycled non-invasive mechanical ventilation in the short term. From the only trial (16 participants) on parallel groups, there was no difference in mortality (one death in each arm) between volume- and pressure-cycled mechanical ventilation. Data from the two cross-over trials suggested that compared with pressure-cycled ventilation, volume-cycled ventilation was associated with less sleep time spent with an arterial oxygen saturation below 90% (mean difference (MD) 6.83 minutes, 95% CI 4.68 to 8.98, P value = 0.00001) and a lower apnoea-hypopnoea (per sleep hour) index (MD -0.65, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.46, P value = 0.00001). We found no study that compared invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation or intermittent positive pressure versus negative pressure ventilation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence about the therapeutic benefit of mechanical ventilation is of very low quality, but is consistent, suggesting alleviation of the symptoms of chronic hypoventilation in the short term. In four small studies, survival was prolonged and unplanned hospitalisation was reduced, mainly in participants with motor neuron diseases. With the exception of motor neuron disease and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for which the natural history supports the survival benefit of mechanical ventilation against no ventilation, further larger randomised trials should assess the long-term benefit of different types and modes of nocturnal mechanical ventilation on quality of life, morbidity and mortality, and its cost-benefit ratio in neuromuscular and chest wall diseases.
慢性肺泡通气不足是许多神经肌肉和胸壁疾病的常见并发症。长期夜间机械通气常用于治疗该病。这是一篇综述的2014年更新版,该综述首次发表于2000年,此前于2007年进行过更新。
探讨夜间机械通气对神经肌肉或胸壁疾病患者死亡率的影响。次要终点是研究呼吸辅助对改善慢性通气不足、睡眠质量、住院率和生活质量的影响。
我们于2014年6月10日检索了Cochrane神经肌肉疾病组专业注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库、医学期刊数据库和荷兰医学文摘数据库。我们联系了已识别试验的作者及该领域的其他专家。
我们检索了所有年龄的、患有神经肌肉或胸壁疾病相关的、各种严重程度的稳定慢性通气不足的参与者的半随机或随机对照试验,这些参与者接受任何类型和任何模式的长期夜间机械通气。主要结局指标是一年死亡率,次要结局是计划外住院、通气不足相关临床症状和日间高碳酸血症的短期和长期逆转、肺功能改善以及睡眠呼吸障碍。
我们采用Cochrane标准方法选择研究、提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
10项符合条件的试验共纳入173名参与者。大约一半的试验在选择、失访或报告偏倚方面风险较低,几乎所有试验在实施和检测偏倚方面风险较高。四项试验报告了长期死亡率数据。与自主呼吸相比,夜间机械通气组的合并死亡风险比(RR)为0.62(95%置信区间(CI)0.42至0.91,P值=0.01)。试验之间存在相当大且显著的异质性,可能与研究人群的差异有关。两项研究提供了计划外住院的信息。相应的合并RR为0.25(95%CI 0.08至0.82,P值=0.02),支持夜间机械通气。对于大多数结局指标,夜间机械通气与未通气之间没有显著的长期差异。符合条件的试验中未评估大多数次要结局。10项试验中的3项(共39名参与者,两项采用交叉设计,一项采用两个平行组)在短期内比较了容量控制和压力控制的无创机械通气。在唯一一项平行组试验(16名参与者)中,容量控制通气和压力控制通气的死亡率无差异(每组各有1例死亡)。两项交叉试验的数据表明,与压力控制通气相比,容量控制通气与动脉血氧饱和度低于90%的睡眠时间减少有关(平均差(MD)6.83分钟,95%CI 4.68至8.98,P值=0.00001),且呼吸暂停低通气指数(每睡眠小时)较低(MD -0.65,95%CI -0.84至-0.46,P值=0.00001)。我们未找到比较有创和无创机械通气或间歇正压通气与负压通气的研究。
目前关于机械通气治疗益处的证据质量很低,但结果一致,表明在短期内可缓解慢性通气不足的症状。在四项小型研究中,生存期延长,计划外住院减少,主要见于运动神经元疾病患者。除运动神经元疾病和杜兴氏肌营养不良外,其自然病史支持机械通气相对于不进行通气的生存益处,进一步的大型随机试验应评估不同类型和模式的夜间机械通气对神经肌肉和胸壁疾病患者生活质量、发病率和死亡率的长期益处及其成本效益比。