Bruschettini Matteo, O'Donnell Colm Pf, Davis Peter G, Morley Colin J, Moja Lorenzo, Calevo Maria Grazia
Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Paediatrics, Lund, Sweden.
Skåne University Hospital, Cochrane Sweden, Wigerthuset, Remissgatan 4, first floor, room 11-221, Lund, Sweden, 22185.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 18;3(3):CD004953. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004953.pub4.
At birth, infants' lungs are fluid-filled. For newborns to have a successful transition, this fluid must be replaced by air to enable gas exchange. Some infants are judged to have inadequate breathing at birth and are resuscitated with positive pressure ventilation (PPV). Giving prolonged (sustained) inflations at the start of PPV may help clear lung fluid and establish gas volume within the lungs.
To assess the benefits and harms of an initial sustained lung inflation (SLI) (> 1 second duration) versus standard inflations (≤ 1 second) in newborn infants receiving resuscitation with intermittent PPV.
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 1 April 2019), Embase (1980 to 1 April 2019), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 1 April 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles to identify randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing initial sustained lung inflation (SLI) versus standard inflations given to infants receiving resuscitation with PPV at birth.
We assessed the methodological quality of included trials using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) criteria (assessing randomisation, blinding, loss to follow-up, and handling of outcome data). We evaluated treatment effects using a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for categorical data; and mean standard deviation (SD), and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
Ten trials enrolling 1467 infants met our inclusion criteria. Investigators in nine trials (1458 infants) administered sustained inflation with no chest compressions. Use of sustained inflation had no impact on the primary outcomes of this review: mortality in the delivery room (typical RR 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 63.40 (I² not applicable); typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 479 participants); and mortality during hospitalisation (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.43; I² = 42%; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 1458 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for death in the delivery room because of limitations in study design and imprecision of estimates (only one death was recorded across studies). For death before discharge the quality was moderate: with longer follow-up there were more deaths (n = 143) but limitations in study design remained. Among secondary outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the SLI group (mean difference (MD) -5.37 days, 95% CI -6.31 to -4.43; I² = 95%; 5 studies, 524 participants; low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity, statistical significance, and magnitude of effects of this outcome are largely influenced by a single study at high risk of bias: when this study was removed from the analysis, the size of the effect was reduced (MD -1.71 days, 95% CI -3.04 to -0.39; I² = 0%). Results revealed no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes (e.g. risk of endotracheal intubation outside the delivery room by 72 hours of age (typical RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04; I² = 65%; 5 studies, 811 participants); risk of surfactant administration during hospital admission (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 1458 participants); risk of chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 735 participants); pneumothorax (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; I² = 34%; 8 studies, 1377 infants); or risk of patent ductus arteriosus requiring pharmacological treatment (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 48%; 7 studies, 1127 infants). The quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes was moderate (limitations in study design ‒ GRADE) except for pneumothorax (low quality: limitations in study design and imprecision of estimates ‒ GRADE). We could not perform any meta-analysis in the comparison of the use of initial sustained inflation versus standard inflations in newborns receiving resuscitation with chest compressions because we identified only one trial for inclusion (a pilot study of nine preterm infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of nine studies shows that sustained lung inflation without chest compression was not better than intermittent ventilation for reducing mortality in the delivery room (low-quality evidence ‒ GRADE) or during hospitalisation (moderate-quality evidence ‒ GRADE), which were the primary outcomes of this review. However, the single largest study, which was well conducted and had the greatest number of enrolled infants, was stopped early for higher mortality rate in the sustained inflation group. When considering secondary outcomes, such as rate of intubation, rate or duration of respiratory support, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia, we found no benefit of sustained inflation over intermittent ventilation (moderate-quality evidence ‒ GRADE). Duration of mechanical ventilation was shortened in the SLI group (low-quality evidence ‒ GRADE); this result should be interpreted cautiously, however, as it might have been influenced by study characteristics other than the intervention. There is no evidence to support the use of sustained inflation based on evidence from our review.
婴儿出生时肺部充满液体。为了使新生儿顺利过渡,这种液体必须被空气取代,以实现气体交换。一些婴儿在出生时被判定呼吸不足,需通过正压通气(PPV)进行复苏。在PPV开始时给予长时间(持续)充气可能有助于清除肺内液体并在肺内建立气体容量。
评估在接受间歇性PPV复苏的新生儿中,初始持续肺充气(SLI)(持续时间>1秒)与标准充气(≤1秒)相比的益处和危害。
我们使用Cochrane新生儿组的标准检索策略,检索Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL;2019年第3期)、通过PubMed检索MEDLINE(1966年至2019年4月1日)、Embase(1980年至2019年4月1日)以及护理和联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)(1982年至2019年4月1日)。我们还检索了临床试验数据库、会议论文集以及检索文章的参考文献列表,以识别随机对照试验和半随机试验。
比较初始持续肺充气(SLI)与出生时接受PPV复苏的婴儿的标准充气的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机试验。
我们使用Cochrane有效实践和护理组织小组(EPOC)标准(评估随机化、盲法、失访以及结局数据的处理)评估纳入试验的方法学质量。我们使用固定效应模型评估治疗效果,分类数据采用风险比(RR);连续数据采用均值标准差(SD)和加权均值差(WMD)。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。
十项纳入1467名婴儿的试验符合我们的纳入标准。九项试验(1458名婴儿)的研究者在不进行胸外按压的情况下给予持续充气。使用持续充气对本综述的主要结局无影响:产房死亡率(典型RR 2.66,95%置信区间(CI)0.11至63.40(I²不适用);典型RD 0.00,95% CI -0.02至0.02;I² = 0%;5项研究,479名参与者);住院期间死亡率(典型RR 1.09,95% CI 0.83至1.43;I² = 42%;典型RD 0.01,95% CI -0.02至0.04;I² = 24%;9项研究,1458名参与者)。由于研究设计的局限性和估计的不精确性(各研究仅记录了1例死亡),产房死亡的证据质量较低。出院前死亡的质量为中等:随着随访时间延长,死亡人数增多(n = 143),但研究设计的局限性仍然存在。在次要结局中,SLI组机械通气时间较短(均值差(MD)-5.37天,95% CI -6.31至-4.43;I² = 95%;5项研究,524名参与者;低质量证据)。这一结局的异质性、统计学显著性和效应大小在很大程度上受一项存在高偏倚风险的单一研究影响:当该研究从分析中剔除时,效应大小减小(MD -1.71天,95% CI -3.04至-0.39;I² = 0%)。结果显示,其他任何次要结局均无差异(例如,72小时龄时产房外气管插管风险(典型RR 0.91,95% CI 0.79至1.04;I² = 65%;5项研究,811名参与者);住院期间使用表面活性剂的风险(典型RR 0.99,95% CI 0.91至1.08;I² = 0%;9项研究,1458名参与者);慢性肺病风险(典型RR 0.99,95% CI 0.83至1.18;I² = 0%;4项研究,735名参与者);气胸(典型RR 0.89,95% CI 0.57至1.40;I² = 34%;8项研究,1377名婴儿);或需要药物治疗的动脉导管未闭风险(典型RR 0.99,95% CI 0.87至1.12;I² = 48%;7项研究,1127名婴儿)。除气胸外,这些次要结局的证据质量为中等(研究设计存在局限性 - GRADE)(气胸为低质量:研究设计存在局限性且估计不精确 - GRADE)。在比较接受胸外按压复苏的新生儿中初始持续充气与标准充气的使用时我们无法进行任何荟萃分析,因为我们仅识别出一项纳入试验(一项对9名早产儿的试点研究)。
我们对九项研究的荟萃分析表明,在不进行胸外按压的情况下,持续肺充气在降低产房死亡率(低质量证据 - GRADE)或住院期间死亡率(中等质量证据 - GRADE)方面并不优于间歇性通气,而这是本综述的主要结局。然而,规模最大、开展良好且纳入婴儿数量最多的单一研究因持续充气组死亡率较高而提前终止。在考虑次要结局,如插管率、呼吸支持率或持续时间、支气管肺发育不良时,我们发现持续充气并不优于间歇性通气(中等质量证据 - GRADE)。SLI组机械通气时间缩短(低质量证据 - GRADE);然而,这一结果应谨慎解释,因为它可能受到干预以外的研究特征影响。根据我们的综述证据,没有证据支持使用持续充气。