Cabrini Luca, Landoni Giovanni, Oriani Alessandro, Plumari Valentina P, Nobile Leda, Greco Massimiliano, Pasin Laura, Beretta Luigi, Zangrillo Alberto
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute University, Milan, Italy.
Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):880-8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000819.
Noninvasive ventilation is increasingly applied to prevent or treat acute respiratory failure, but its benefit on survival is still controversial for many indications. We performed a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials focused on the effect of noninvasive ventilation on mortality.
BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated December 31, 2013) were searched.
We included all the randomized controlled trials published in the last 20 years performed in adults, reporting mortality, comparing noninvasive ventilation to any other treatment for prevention or treatment of acute respiratory failure or as a tool allowing an earlier extubation. Studies with unclear methodology, comparing two noninvasive ventilation modalities, or in palliative settings were excluded.
We extracted data on mortality, study design, population, clinical setting, comparator, and follow-up duration.
Seventy-eight studies were analyzed. Noninvasive ventilation was associated with a reduction in mortality (12.6% in the noninvasive ventilation group vs 17.8% in the control arm; risk ratio=0.73 [0.66-0.81]; p<0.001; number needed to treat=19 with 7,365 patients included) at the longest available follow-up. Mortality was reduced when noninvasive ventilation was used to treat (14.2% vs 20.6%; risk ratio=0.72; p<0.001; number needed to treat=16, with survival improved in pulmonary edema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute respiratory failure of mixed etiologies, and postoperative acute respiratory failure) or to prevent acute respiratory failure (5.3% vs 8.3%; risk ratio=0.64 [0.46-0.90]; number needed to treat=34, with survival improved in postextubation ICU patients), but not when used to facilitate an earlier extubation. Overall results were confirmed for hospital mortality. Patients randomized to noninvasive ventilation maintained the survival benefit even in studies allowing crossover of controls to noninvasive ventilation as rescue treatment.
This comprehensive metaanalysis suggests that noninvasive ventilation improves survival in acute care settings. The benefit could be lost in some subgroups of patients if noninvasive ventilation is applied late as a rescue treatment. Whenever noninvasive ventilation is indicated, an early adoption should be promoted.
无创通气越来越多地用于预防或治疗急性呼吸衰竭,但对于许多适应症而言,其对生存率的益处仍存在争议。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,重点关注无创通气对死亡率的影响。
检索了生物医学中心、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane临床试验中央注册库(2013年12月31日更新)。
我们纳入了过去20年发表的所有针对成人进行的随机对照试验,这些试验报告了死亡率,比较了无创通气与预防或治疗急性呼吸衰竭的任何其他治疗方法,或作为一种可使更早拔管的工具。排除方法不明确、比较两种无创通气模式或在姑息治疗环境中的研究。
我们提取了关于死亡率、研究设计、人群、临床环境、对照和随访持续时间的数据。
分析了78项研究。在最长的可用随访期,无创通气与死亡率降低相关(无创通气组为12.6%,对照组为17.8%;风险比=0.73[0.66-0.81];p<0.001;需治疗人数=19,纳入7365例患者)。当无创通气用于治疗(14.2%对20.6%;风险比=0.72;p<0.001;需治疗人数=16,肺水肿、慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重、混合病因急性呼吸衰竭和术后急性呼吸衰竭患者的生存率提高)或预防急性呼吸衰竭(5.3%对8.3%;风险比=0.64[0.46-0.90];需治疗人数=34,拔管后ICU患者的生存率提高)时,死亡率降低,但用于促进更早拔管时则不然。医院死亡率的总体结果得到证实。即使在允许对照组交叉接受无创通气作为挽救治疗的研究中,随机接受无创通气的患者仍保持生存获益。
这项全面的荟萃分析表明,无创通气可提高急性护理环境中的生存率。如果将无创通气作为挽救治疗而延迟应用,在某些患者亚组中可能会失去益处。只要有指征应用无创通气,就应提倡早期采用。