Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(4):298-306. doi: 10.1017/S0266462319000424. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is gaining popularity as a mode of respiratory support. We updated a systematic review and meta-analyses examining the efficacy and safety of HHHFNC compared with standard treatments for preterm infants. The primary outcome was the need for reintubation for preterm infants following mechanical ventilation (post-extubation analysis) or need for intubation for preterm infants not previously intubated (analysis of primary respiratory support).
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HHHFNC versus standard treatments. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.
The post-extubation analysis included ten RCTs (n = 1,201), and the analysis of primary respiratory support included ten RCTs (n = 1,676). There were no statistically significant differences for outcomes measuring efficacy, including the primary outcome. There were statistically significant differences favoring HHHFNC versus nasal cannula positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for air leak (post-extubation, risk ratio [RR] 0.29, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.76, I2 = 0) and nasal trauma (post-extubation: 0.35, 95 percent CI 0.27 to 0.46, I2 = 5 percent; primary respiratory support: RR 0.52, 95 percent CI 0.37 to 0.74; I2 = 27 percent). Studies, particularly those of primary respiratory support, included very few preterm infants with gestational age (GA) <28 weeks.
HHHFNC may offer an efficacious and safe alternative to NCPAP for some infants but evidence is lacking for preterm infants with GA ≤28 weeks.
加热湿化高流量鼻导管(HHHFNC)作为一种呼吸支持模式越来越受欢迎。我们更新了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,考察了 HHHFNC 与标准治疗相比在早产儿中的疗效和安全性。主要结局是接受机械通气后的早产儿需要再次插管(拔管后分析)或未插管的早产儿需要插管(主要呼吸支持分析)。
我们在 PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆中搜索了 HHHFNC 与标准治疗相比的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用 Review Manager 5.3 进行荟萃分析。
拔管后分析纳入了 10 项 RCT(n = 1201),主要呼吸支持分析纳入了 10 项 RCT(n = 1676)。在衡量疗效的结局方面,没有统计学意义的差异,包括主要结局。与鼻塞持续气道正压通气(NCPAP)相比,HHHFNC 有统计学意义的优势,包括气胸(拔管后,风险比 [RR] 0.29,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.11 至 0.76,I2 = 0)和鼻损伤(拔管后:0.35,95%CI 0.27 至 0.46,I2 = 5%;主要呼吸支持:RR 0.52,95%CI 0.37 至 0.74;I2 = 27%)。研究,特别是主要呼吸支持的研究,纳入的极早产儿(GA)<28 周的早产儿非常少。
HHHFNC 可能为一些婴儿提供一种有效且安全的 NCPAP 替代方法,但缺乏对 GA≤28 周的早产儿的证据。