Jat Kana R, Mathew Joseph L
Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110029.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 31;1(1):CD010473. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010473.pub3.
Acute bronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of emergency department visits and hospitalisation in children. There is no specific treatment for bronchiolitis except for supportive treatment, which includes ensuring adequate hydration and oxygen supplementation. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) aims to widen the lungs' peripheral airways, enabling deflation of overdistended lungs in bronchiolitis. Increased airway pressure also prevents the collapse of poorly supported peripheral small airways during expiration. Observational studies report that CPAP is beneficial for children with acute bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.
To assess the efficacy and safety of CPAP compared to no CPAP or sham CPAP in infants and children up to three years of age with acute bronchiolitis.
We conducted searches of CENTRAL (2017, Issue 12), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to December, 2017), Embase (1974 to December 2017), CINAHL (1981 to December 2017), and LILACS (1982 to December 2017) in January 2018.
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cross-over RCTs, and cluster-RCTs evaluating the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis.
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data using a structured pro forma, analysed data, and performed meta-analyses.
We included three studies with a total of 122 children (62/60 in intervention/control arms) aged up to 12 months that investigated nasal CPAP compared with supportive (or "standard") therapy. We included one new trial (72 children) that contributed data to the assessment of respiratory rate and need for mechanical ventilation for this update. The included studies were single-centre trials conducted in France, the UK, and India. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and one was a cross-over RCT. The evidence provided by the included studies was low quality; we assessed high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, and confidence intervals were wide.The effect of CPAP on the need for mechanical ventilation in children with acute bronchiolitis was uncertain due to imprecision around the effect estimate (3 RCTs, 122 children; risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 3.36; low-quality evidence). None of the trials measured time to recovery. Limited, low-quality evidence indicated that CPAP decreased respiratory rate (2 RCTs, 91 children; mean difference (MD) -3.81, 95% CI -5.78 to -1.84). Only one trial measured change in arterial oxygen saturation, and the results were imprecise (19 children; MD -1.70%, 95% CI -3.76 to 0.36). The effect of CPAP on change in arterial partial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO₂) was imprecise (2 RCTs, 50 children; MD -2.62 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.05; low-quality evidence). Duration of hospital stay was similar in both CPAP and supportive care groups (2 RCTs, 50 children; MD 0.07 days, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.50; low-quality evidence). Two studies did not report about pneumothorax, but pneumothorax did not occur in one study. No studies reported occurrences of deaths. Several outcomes (change in partial oxygen pressure, hospital admission rate (from emergency department to hospital), duration of emergency department stay, and need for intensive care unit admission) were not reported in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited, low-quality evidence suggests that breathing improved (a decreased respiratory rate) in children with bronchiolitis who received CPAP; this finding is unchanged from the 2015 review. Further evidence for this outcome was provided by the inclusion of a low-quality study for the 2018 update. Due to the limited available evidence, the effect of CPAP in children with acute bronchiolitis is uncertain for other outcomes. Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to evaluate the effect of CPAP for children with acute bronchiolitis.
急性细支气管炎是儿童急诊就诊和住院的最常见原因之一。除支持性治疗外,尚无针对细支气管炎的特效治疗方法,支持性治疗包括确保充足的水合作用和氧气补充。持续气道正压通气(CPAP)旨在扩大肺部外周气道,使细支气管炎中过度膨胀的肺得以萎陷。增加的气道压力还可防止呼气期间支持不足的外周小气道塌陷。观察性研究报告称,CPAP对急性细支气管炎患儿有益。这是对2015年首次发表的一篇综述的更新。
评估CPAP与不使用CPAP或假CPAP相比,对3岁及以下急性细支气管炎婴幼儿的疗效和安全性。
我们于2018年1月检索了CENTRAL(2017年第12期),其中包括Cochrane急性呼吸道感染小组的专业注册库、MEDLINE(1946年至2017年12月)、Embase(1974年至2017年12月)、CINAHL(1981年至2017年12月)和LILACS(1982年至2017年12月)。
我们纳入了评估CPAP对急性细支气管炎患儿影响的随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验、交叉RCT和整群RCT。
两名综述作者独立评估研究的合格性,使用结构化表格提取数据,分析数据并进行荟萃分析。
我们纳入了三项研究,共122名12个月及以下儿童(干预组/对照组分别为62/60名),这些研究比较了鼻CPAP与支持性(或“标准”)治疗。我们纳入了一项新试验(72名儿童),该试验为本次更新中呼吸频率和机械通气需求的评估提供了数据。纳入的研究均为在法国、英国和印度进行的单中心试验。两项研究为平行组RCT,一项为交叉RCT。纳入研究提供的证据质量较低;我们评估了其在盲法、结局数据不完整和选择性报告方面存在高偏倚风险,且置信区间较宽。由于效应估计值存在不精确性,CPAP对急性细支气管炎患儿机械通气需求的影响尚不确定(3项RCT,122名儿童;风险比(RR)0.69,95%置信区间(CI)0.14至3.36;低质量证据)。没有一项试验测量恢复时间。有限的低质量证据表明,CPAP可降低呼吸频率(2项RCT,91名儿童;平均差(MD)-3.81,95%CI -5.78至-1.84)。只有一项试验测量了动脉血氧饱和度的变化,结果不精确(19名儿童;MD -1.70%,95%CI -3.76至0.36)。CPAP对动脉血二氧化碳分压(pCO₂)变化的影响不精确(2项RCT,50名儿童;MD -2.62 mmHg,95%CI -5.29至0.05;低质量证据)。CPAP组和支持性治疗组的住院时间相似(2项RCT,50名儿童;MD 0.07天,95%CI -0.36至0.50;低质量证据)。两项研究未报告气胸情况,但一项研究中未发生气胸。没有研究报告死亡情况。纳入研究未报告若干结局(血氧分压变化、住院率(从急诊科到医院)、急诊科停留时间和重症监护病房入住需求)。
有限的低质量证据表明,接受CPAP治疗的细支气管炎患儿呼吸功能有所改善(呼吸频率降低);这一发现与2015年的综述一致。2018年更新纳入的一项低质量研究为这一结局提供了进一步证据。由于现有证据有限,CPAP对急性细支气管炎患儿其他结局的影响尚不确定。需要开展更大规模、有足够效力的试验来评估CPAP对急性细支气管炎患儿的影响。