Suppr超能文献

经鼻湿化高流量快速序贯通气与面罩预氧合的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparison of Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange and Facemasks in Preoxygenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

Emergency Trauma Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.

出版信息

Biomed Res Int. 2022 Jul 13;2022:9858820. doi: 10.1155/2022/9858820. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transnasal Humidified Rapid-Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange (THRIVE) has received increasing attention and application as an effective noninvasive mode of ventilation in the treatment of clinical anesthesia and critically ill patients. The conclusions reached in clinical studies of THRIVE and facemask oxygenation are still controversial, and the main objective of this systematic review is to determine the advantages of THRIVE over facemask oxygenation in intensive care units, respiratory medicine, and perioperative preoxygenation.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library have search restrictions. The search library was full of English language articles from the first publication to 15 July 2021. Eligible randomized controlled study designs were included. 245 records were screened, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling a total of 235 patients.

RESULTS

Studying the THRIVE group compared to the facemask group, three studies analyzing intubation time showed that there is no difference in the effect of THRIVE and facemasks (MD -1.22, 95% CI -7.23 to 4.78, and = 0.69 > 0.05). Three studies analyzing apnea showed that there was no difference between the two groups (SMD 1, 95% CI -0.76 to 2.76, and = 0.27 > 0.05). Three studies analyzing PaO after preoxygenation showed that THRIVE is more effective than facemasks (MD 72.58, 95% CI 31.25 to 113.90, = 3.44, and < 0.001). Two studies analyzing oxygen saturation SpO after successful intubation showed that there was no difference in the effectiveness (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.03 to 1.22, and = 0.87 > 0.05). Two studies analyzing PCO after complete paralysis or intubation preoxygenation showed that there was no difference between the two groups (MD 2.76, 95% CI -1.74 to 7.26, and = 0.23 > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

THRIVE does not have a greater advantage over a facemask in improving apnea time, oxygenation time, PCO, and SpO, but it has an advantage in improving arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO) after preoxygenation, which can improve PaO well. This trial is registered with the protocol registration number CRD42021268143.

摘要

背景

经鼻高流量湿化氧疗(THRIVE)作为一种有效的非侵入性通气模式,在临床麻醉和危重病患者的治疗中受到越来越多的关注和应用。THRIVE 与面罩给氧的临床研究结论仍存在争议,本系统评价的主要目的是确定 THRIVE 在重症监护、呼吸医学和围手术期预充氧方面优于面罩给氧的优势。

方法

对 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 进行了检索限制。检索库充满了从首次发表到 2021 年 7 月 15 日的英文文章。纳入了符合条件的随机对照研究设计。筛选了 245 条记录,符合纳入标准的研究共 5 项,共纳入 235 例患者。

结果

与面罩组相比,研究 THRIVE 组的结果显示,THRIVE 和面罩的插管时间效果无差异(MD-1.22,95%CI-7.23 至 4.78, = 0.69>0.05)。分析无通气时间的三项研究表明两组之间无差异(SMD 1,95%CI-0.76 至 2.76, = 0.27>0.05)。分析预充氧后 PaO 的三项研究表明,THRIVE 比面罩更有效(MD 72.58,95%CI31.25 至 113.90, = 3.44, <0.001)。分析成功插管后 SpO 的两项研究表明,疗效无差异(MD 0.09,95%CI-1.03 至 1.22, = 0.87>0.05)。分析完全瘫痪或插管预充氧后 PCO 的两项研究表明,两组之间无差异(MD 2.76,95%CI-1.74 至 7.26, = 0.23>0.05)。

结论

THRIVE 在改善无通气时间、氧合时间、PCO 和 SpO 方面没有比面罩更具优势,但在改善预充氧后动脉血氧分压(PaO)方面具有优势,可显著改善 PaO。本试验已在注册号 CRD42021268143 进行了注册。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b46a/9300319/1b3eb0394e2b/BMRI2022-9858820.001.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