Roberts S, Skinner D, Biccard B, Rodseth R N
Perioperative Research Group, Department of Anaesthetics and Critical Care, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Perioperative Research Group, Department of Anaesthetics and Critical Care, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014 Oct;40(5):553-9. doi: 10.1007/s00068-013-0370-7. Epub 2014 Jan 21.
Respiratory support is the mainstay for the management of patients with pulmonary contusion following blunt chest trauma. In patients not requiring immediate intubation and ventilation, the optimal respiratory management strategy is not clear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation (NIV), as compared to traditional respiratory support strategies (i.e., high-flow facemask oxygen or pre-emptive intubation and ventilation), in adult patients with blunt chest trauma.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIV to traditional forms of respiratory support (i.e., facemask oxygen or intubation and ventilation) in an adult trauma population. For each eligible trial, we extracted the outcomes of all-cause mortality, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, and pneumonia.
We identified 643 citations, selected 17 for full-text evaluation, and identified three eligible RCTs. Patients receiving NIV had a non-significant reduction in the risk of death (OR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.18-1.70; I (2) = 0 %), but significant reductions in length of ICU stay (mean difference -2.45 days; 95 % CI -4.27 to -0.63; I (2) = 66 %), length of hospital stay (mean difference -4.60 days; 95 % CI -8.81 to -0.39; I (2) = 85 %), and risk of pneumonia (OR 0.20; 95 % CI 0.09-0.47; I (2) = 0 %).
This meta-analysis suggests that NIV is superior to both high-flow facemask oxygen or pre-emptive intubation and ventilation in patients with blunt chest trauma who have no contraindication to NIV.
呼吸支持是钝性胸部创伤后肺挫伤患者治疗的主要手段。对于不需要立即插管和通气的患者,最佳的呼吸管理策略尚不清楚。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在确定在成年钝性胸部创伤患者中,与传统呼吸支持策略(即高流量面罩给氧或预防性插管和通气)相比,无创通气(NIV)的疗效。
我们对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了成年创伤人群中NIV与传统呼吸支持形式(即面罩给氧或插管和通气)。对于每项符合条件的试验,我们提取了全因死亡率、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、住院时间和肺炎的结局。
我们检索到643篇文献,选择17篇进行全文评估,并确定了3项符合条件的RCT。接受NIV的患者死亡风险有非显著性降低(OR 0.55;95%CI 0.18-1.70;I²=0%),但ICU住院时间显著缩短(平均差-2.45天;95%CI -4.27至-0.63;I²=66%),住院时间显著缩短(平均差-4.60天;95%CI -8.81至-0.39;I²=85%),肺炎风险显著降低(OR 0.