Lin Xi, Jia Peng, Li Xiao-Qin, Liu Qin
Department of Pediatrics, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan 646000, China.
Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Nov;22(11):1164-1171. doi: 10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2005102.
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in neonates.
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang Database, CNKI, and Weipu Database were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HFNC versus nCPAP in the treatment of neonatal RDS published up to April 1, 2020. RevMan5.3 software was used to perform a Meta analysis of the eligible RCTs.
A total of 12 RCTs were included, with 2 861 neonates in total, among whom 2 698 neonates (94.30%) had a gestational age of ≥28 weeks and 163 (5.70%) had a gestational age of <28 weeks. For primary respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly higher rate of treatment failure than the nCPAP group (RR=1.86, 95%CI: 1.53-2.25, P<0.001), but there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (P=0.40) and the rate of use of pulmonary surfactant (P=0.77). For post-extubation respiratory support, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the treatment failure rate, reintubation rate, and total oxygen supply time (P>0.05). For primary respiratory support and post-extubation respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly lower incidence rate of nasal injury than the nCPAP group (P<0.001), and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the mortality rate and incidence rates of the complications such as air leak syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (P>0.05).
Based on the current clinical evidence, HFNC has a higher failure rate than nCPAP when used as primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS, and therefore it is not recommended to use HFNC as the primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS. In RDS neonates with a gestational age of ≥28 weeks, HFNC can be used as post-extubation respiratory support in the weaning phase.
系统评价高流量鼻导管(HFNC)治疗与鼻持续气道正压通气(nCPAP)治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征(RDS)的疗效和安全性。
检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、中国生物医学光盘数据库、万方数据库、中国知网和维普数据库,查找截至2020年4月1日发表的关于HFNC与nCPAP治疗新生儿RDS的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用RevMan5.3软件对符合条件的RCT进行Meta分析。
共纳入12项RCT,共2861例新生儿,其中2698例(94.30%)胎龄≥28周,163例(5.70%)胎龄<28周。对于初级呼吸支持,HFNC组治疗失败率显著高于nCPAP组(RR=1.86,95%CI:1.53-2.25,P<0.001),但两组在有创机械通气率(P=0.40)和肺表面活性物质使用率(P=0.77)方面无显著差异。对于拔管后呼吸支持,两组在治疗失败率、再插管率和总供氧时间方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。对于初级呼吸支持和拔管后呼吸支持,HFNC组鼻损伤发生率显著低于nCPAP组(P<0.001),两组在死亡率以及气漏综合征、支气管肺发育不良和坏死性小肠结肠炎等并发症发生率方面无显著差异(P>0.05)。
基于目前的临床证据,HFNC作为RDS新生儿的初级呼吸支持时,失败率高于nCPAP,因此不建议将HFNC用作RDS新生儿的初级呼吸支持。在胎龄≥28周的RDS新生儿中,HFNC可在撤机阶段用作拔管后呼吸支持。