Moresco Luca, Romantsik Olga, Calevo Maria Grazia, Bruschettini Matteo
Ospedale San Paolo, Pediatric and Neonatology Unit, Savona, Italy.
Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Paediatrics, Lund, Sweden.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 17;4(4):CD013231. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013231.pub2.
Transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) is characterized by tachypnea and signs of respiratory distress. Transient tachypnea typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Supportive management might be sufficient. Non-invasive (i.e. without endotracheal intubation) respiratory support may, however, be administered to reduce respiratory distress during TTN. In addition, non-invasive respiratory support might improve clearance of lung liquid thus reducing the effort required to breathe, improving respiratory distress and potentially reducing the duration of tachypnea.
To assess benefits and harms of non-invasive respiratory support for the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1996 to 19 February 2019), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2019) and CINAHL (1982 to 19 February 2019). We applied no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registries for ongoing studies.
Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and cluster trials on non-invasive respiratory support provided to infants born at 34 weeks' gestational age or more and less than three days of age with transient tachypnea of the newborn.
For each of the included trials, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, duration of oxygen therapy, need for continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP] and need for mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review were need for mechanical ventilation and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
We included three trials (150 infants) comparing either CPAP to free-flow oxygen, nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation to nasal CPAP, or nasal high-frequency percussive ventilation versus nasal CPAP. Due to these different comparisons and to high clinical heterogeneity in the baseline clinical characteristics, we did not pool the three studies. The use of CPAP versus free oxygen did not improve the primary outcomes of this review: need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 6.99; 1 study, 64 participants); and pneumothorax (not estimable, no cases occurred). Among secondary outcomes, CPAP reduced the duration of tachypnea as compared to free oxygen (mean difference [MD] -21.10 hours, 95% CI -22.92 to -19.28; 1 study, 64 participants). Nasal intermittent ventilation did not reduce the need for mechanical ventilation as compared with CPAP (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 32.72; 1 study, 40 participants) or the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 study, 40 participants); duration of tachypnea did not differ (MD 4.30, 95% CI -19.14 to 27.74; 1 study, 40 participants). In the study comparing nasal high-frequency ventilation to CPAP, no cases of mechanical ventilation of pneumothorax occurred (not estimable; 1 study, 46 participants); duration of tachypnea was reduced in the nasal high-frequency ventilation group (MD -4.53, 95% CI -5.64 to -3.42; 1 study, 46 participants). The quality of the evidence was very low due to the imprecision of the estimates and unclear risk of bias for detection bias and high risk of bias for reporting bias. Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable for any of the analyses as no studies were pooled. Two trials are ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to establish the benefit and harms of non-invasive respiratory support in the management of transient tachypnea of the newborn. Though two of the included trials showed a shorter duration of tachypnea, clinically relevant outcomes did not differ amongst the groups. Given the limited and low quality of the evidence available, it was impossible to determine whether non-invasive respiratory support was safe or effective for the treatment of transient tachypnea of the newborn.
新生儿暂时性呼吸急促(TTN)的特征为呼吸急促和呼吸窘迫体征。暂时性呼吸急促通常在足月儿和晚期早产儿出生后的头两小时内出现。支持性治疗可能就足够了。然而,也可给予无创(即不进行气管插管)呼吸支持,以减轻TTN期间的呼吸窘迫。此外,无创呼吸支持可能会改善肺液清除,从而减少呼吸所需的努力,改善呼吸窘迫,并可能缩短呼吸急促的持续时间。
评估无创呼吸支持治疗新生儿暂时性呼吸急促的益处和危害。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL;2019年第2期)、MEDLINE(1996年至2019年2月19日)、Embase(1980年至2019年2月19日)和CINAHL(1982年至2019年2月19日)。我们未设语言限制。我们检索了临床试验注册库以查找正在进行的研究。
针对胎龄34周及以上、出生后不到3天且患有新生儿暂时性呼吸急促的婴儿提供无创呼吸支持的随机对照试验、半随机对照试验和整群试验。
对于每项纳入试验,两位综述作者独立提取数据(如参与者数量、出生体重、胎龄、氧疗持续时间、持续气道正压通气[CPAP]需求和机械通气需求、机械通气持续时间等),并评估偏倚风险(如随机化的充分性、盲法、随访的完整性)。本综述考虑的主要结局为机械通气需求和气胸。我们采用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了三项试验(150名婴儿),比较了CPAP与自由流氧气、鼻间歇强制通气与鼻CPAP,或鼻高频振荡通气与鼻CPAP。由于这些不同的比较以及基线临床特征的高度临床异质性,我们未对这三项研究进行合并分析。使用CPAP与自由氧相比,并未改善本综述的主要结局:机械通气需求(风险比[RR]0.30,95%置信区间[CI]0.01至6.99;1项研究,64名参与者);和气胸(无法估计,未发生病例)。在次要结局中,与自由氧相比,CPAP缩短了呼吸急促的持续时间(平均差[MD]-21.10小时,95%CI-22.92至-19.28;1项研究,64名参与者)。与CPAP相比,鼻间歇通气并未降低机械通气需求(RR4.00,95%CI0.49至32.72;1项研究,40名参与者)或气胸发生率(RR1.00,95%CI0.07至14.90;1项研究,40名参与者);呼吸急促持续时间无差异(MD4.30,95%CI-19.14至27.74;1项研究,40名参与者)。在比较鼻高频通气与CPAP的研究中,未发生机械通气或气胸病例(无法估计;1项研究,46名参与者);鼻高频通气组呼吸急促持续时间缩短(MD-4.53,95%CI-5.64至-3.42;一项研究,46名参与者)。由于估计值不精确、检测偏倚的偏倚风险不明确以及报告偏倚的高风险,证据质量非常低。由于未合并任何研究,异质性检验不适用于任何分析。两项试验正在进行中。
尚无足够证据确定无创呼吸支持治疗新生儿暂时性呼吸急促的益处和危害。尽管纳入的两项试验显示呼吸急促持续时间较短,但各组间临床相关结局并无差异。鉴于现有证据有限且质量较低,无法确定无创呼吸支持治疗新生儿暂时性呼吸急促是否安全或有效。