Department of Pediatrics, Ann and Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Arch Dis Child. 2022 Jun;107(6):543-552. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2021-323041. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
Determine non-invasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outcomes for paediatric respiratory distress in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
LMIC hospitals.
One month to 15 year olds with respiratory distress.
We searched Medline, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science and Scopus on 7 April 2020. Included studies assessed CPAP safety, efficacy or effectiveness. All study types were included; neonatal only studies were excluded. Data were extracted by two reviewers and bias was assessed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated, and risk ratios (RR) were produced for meta-analyses. (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018084278).
2174 papers were screened, 20 were included in the systematic review and 3 were included in two separate meta-analyses of mortality and adverse events. Studies suitable for meta-analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Bangladesh, Ghana and Malawi. For meta-analyses comparing death or adverse events between CPAP and low-flow oxygen recipients, we found no clear CPAP effect on mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.72) or adverse events (RR 1.52, CI 0.71 to 3.26). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for both death and adverse events outcomes to 'low' due to design issues and results discrepancies across RCTs.
Evidence for CPAP efficacy against mortality and adverse events has low certainty and is context dependent. Hospitals introducing CPAP need to have mechanisms in place to optimise safety in the context it is being used; this includes the location (a high dependency or intensive care area), adequate numbers of staff trained in CPAP use, close monitoring and mechanisms for escalation, daily direct physician supervision, equipment that is age appropriate and user-friendly and continuous monitoring of outcomes and quality of care.
确定在中低收入国家(LMICs)使用持续气道正压通气(CPAP)治疗儿科呼吸窘迫的效果。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
LMIC 医院。
年龄在 1 个月至 15 岁之间,有呼吸窘迫的儿童。
我们于 2020 年 4 月 7 日在 Medline、Embase、LILACS、Web of Science 和 Scopus 上进行了搜索。纳入的研究评估了 CPAP 的安全性、疗效或有效性。所有研究类型均被纳入;排除仅新生儿的研究。两名评审员提取数据并评估偏倚。评估证据确定性,并为荟萃分析生成风险比(RR)。(PROSPERO 方案 CRD42018084278)。
共筛选出 2174 篇论文,其中 20 篇论文被纳入系统评价,3 篇论文被纳入死亡率和不良事件的两项单独荟萃分析。适合荟萃分析的研究是来自孟加拉国、加纳和马拉维的随机对照试验(RCT)。对于比较 CPAP 和低流量氧气接受者之间的死亡或不良事件的荟萃分析,我们没有发现 CPAP 对死亡率(RR0.75,95%CI0.33 至 1.72)或不良事件(RR1.52,CI0.71 至 3.26)有明显影响。由于设计问题和 RCT 结果差异,我们将死亡率和不良事件结果的证据确定性降级为“低”。
CPAP 治疗死亡率和不良事件的疗效证据确定性较低,且与背景相关。引入 CPAP 的医院需要在使用 CPAP 的背景下建立优化安全性的机制;这包括位置(高依赖或重症监护区)、受过 CPAP 使用培训的足够数量的工作人员、密切监测和升级机制、每日直接医生监督、适合年龄和易于使用的设备以及对结果和护理质量的持续监测。