Suppr超能文献

清醒俯卧位、高流量鼻导管吸氧和无创通气作为新型冠状病毒肺炎急性呼吸衰竭的无创呼吸策略:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Awake Prone Positioning, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Non-Invasive Ventilation as Non-Invasive Respiratory Strategies in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Schmid Benedikt, Griesel Mirko, Fischer Anna-Lena, Romero Carolina S, Metzendorf Maria-Inti, Weibel Stephanie, Fichtner Falk

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany.

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Leipzig Medical Services, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2022 Jan 13;11(2):391. doi: 10.3390/jcm11020391.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety.

RESULTS

Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65-1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03-1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71-0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51-2.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.

摘要

背景

急性呼吸衰竭是新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)患者最重要的器官功能障碍。虽然无创通气(NIV)和高流量鼻导管(HFNC)吸氧经常被使用,但其疗效和安全性仍不确定。清醒俯卧位通气(APP)对COVID-19患者的益处和危害尚不清楚。

方法

我们检索了比较HFNC与NIV以及APP与标准治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们对死亡率、插管率和安全性的数据进行了荟萃分析。

结果

共纳入5项RCT(2182例患者)。虽然与NIV相比,HFNC是否会改变死亡率仍不确定(风险比:0.92,95%置信区间0.65-1.33),但HFNC可能会增加插管率或死亡率(复合终点;风险比1.22,1.03-1.45)。我们不知道HFNC是否会改变伤害风险。与标准治疗相比,APP可能会降低插管率(风险比0.83,0.71-0.96),但对死亡率可能几乎没有影响或没有影响(风险比:1.08,0.51-2.31)。

结论

证据的确定性为中等至非常低。没有令人信服的证据支持HFNC或NIV,但两者都有很大的伤害风险。使用APP可能有益,尽管死亡率似乎未受影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/959b/8782004/47944ccb43d0/jcm-11-00391-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验