Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Intensive Care Med. 2022 Feb;48(2):137-147. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06581-1. Epub 2021 Nov 25.
Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in reducing extubation failure among critically ill adults.
We searched databases from inception through October 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating noninvasive respiratory support therapies (NIPPV, HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy, or a combination of these) following extubation in critically ill adults. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of our findings.
We included 36 RCTs (6806 patients). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIPPV (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82]) and HFNC (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87]) reduced reintubation (both moderate certainty). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effect was highest in patients with increased baseline risk of reintubation. As compared to HFNC, no difference in incidence of reintubation was seen with NIPPV (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38], low certainty). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, neither NIPPV (OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04], moderate certainty) or HFNC (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24], low certainty) reduced short-term mortality. Consistent findings were demonstrated across multiple subgroups, including high- and low-risk patients. These results were replicated when evaluating noninvasive strategies for prevention (prophylaxis), but not in rescue (application only after evidence of deterioration) situations.
Our findings suggest that both NIPPV and HFNC reduced reintubation in critically ill adults, compared to conventional oxygen therapy. NIPPV did not reduce incidence of reintubation when compared to HFNC. These findings support the preventative application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies to mitigate extubation failure in critically ill adults, but not in rescue conditions.
系统评价和网络荟萃分析旨在研究非侵入性呼吸策略(包括无创正压通气[NIPPV]和高流量鼻导管[HFNC])在降低危重症成人拔管失败中的疗效。
我们从成立到 2021 年 10 月在数据库中搜索评估非侵入性呼吸支持治疗(NIPPV、HFNC、常规氧疗或这些方法的组合)在危重症成人拔管后的随机对照试验(RCT)。两名审查员独立进行筛选、全文审查和提取。主要观察指标为再插管。我们使用 GRADE 来评估我们研究结果的确定性。
我们纳入了 36 项 RCT(6806 例患者)。与常规氧疗相比,NIPPV(OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82])和 HFNC(OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87])降低了再插管率(均为中等确定性)。敏感性分析表明,在基线再插管风险增加的患者中,效果的幅度最大。与 HFNC 相比,NIPPV 并未降低再插管率(OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38],低确定性)。与常规氧疗相比,NIPPV(OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04],中等确定性)或 HFNC(OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24],低确定性)均未降低短期死亡率。在多个亚组中均观察到一致的结果,包括高危和低危患者。当评估预防(预防)的非侵入性策略时,这些结果得到了复制,但在救援(仅在出现恶化迹象时应用)情况下则没有。
与常规氧疗相比,我们的研究结果表明,NIPPV 和 HFNC 均降低了危重症成人的再插管率。与 HFNC 相比,NIPPV 并未降低再插管率。这些发现支持预防性应用非侵入性呼吸支持策略,以减轻危重症成人的拔管失败,但在救援情况下则不行。