Efficacy and safety of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation and nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:4
作者
Liu, Hua [1 ]
Feng, Haiping [2 ]
Zhang, Yao [1 ]
Zhang, Li [1 ]
机构
[1] Haikou Maternal & Child Hlth Hosp, Neonatal Dept, 6 Wentan Rd,Guoxing Ave, Haikou 570203, Hainan, Peoples R China
[2] Hainan Third Peoples Hosp, Neonatal Dept, Sanya Cent Hosp, Sanya, Peoples R China
关键词
Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation; nasal continuous positive airway pressure ventilation; respiratory distress syndrome; PRETERM INFANTS; CONTROLLED-TRIAL;
D O I
10.21037/tp-22-288
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
Background: The efficacies of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) are controversial. The reasons for controversy may be the selection bias of research objects and the small sample size. Methods: Literature retrieval was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Central, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and China Science Digital Library (CSDL) databases. Inclusion criteria: (I) literatures involving subjects who were newborns with RDS; (II) studies that had established both experimental and control groups; (III) the intervention measures of the experimental and control groups were NIPPV and NCPAP, respectively; (IV) the results included the incidence of intubation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), or mortality; and (V) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The chisquare test was applied for heterogeneity test. Publication bias assessment was conducted by funnel plot and Egger's test. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for individually randomized, parallel group trials (RoB2.0) was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCT research. Results: A total of 10 literatures were included for analysis, including 1,104 patients, 557 in the NIPPV group and 547 in the NCPAP group. Among the literatures, 2 literatures had low risk of bias, 2 literatures had high risk of bias, and the rest had uncertain risk of bias. Compared to NCPAP, NIPPV reduced the incidence of neonatal intubation in RDS [risk ratio (RR) =0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.71, Z=5.11, P<0.00001]. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.13, I2=36%) or publication bias (P<0.05) among the studies. Compared with NCPAP, NIPPV reduced the incidence of BPD in RDS (RR =0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91, Z=2.70, P=0.007). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.10, I2=41%) or publication bias (P>0.05) among the studies. NIPPV reduced the neonatal mortality rate of RDS (RR =0.55, 95% CI: 0.31-0.97, Z=2.08, P=0.04). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity (P=0.20, I2=38%) or publication bias (P>0.05) among the studies. Discussion: Compared with NCPAP, NIPPV can reduce the incidence of intubation, BPD, and mortality. The conclusions need to be confirmed via high-quality RCTs.
引用
收藏
页码:1242 / 1250
页数:9
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   A randomized controlled trial of synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation in RDS [J].
Bhandari, V. ;
Gavino, R. G. ;
Nedrelow, J. H. ;
Pallela, P. ;
Salvador, A. ;
Ehrenkranz, R. A. ;
Brodsky, N. L. .
JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2007, 27 (11) :697-703
[2]   Mechanical Ventilation in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome at High Altitude: A Retrospective Study From Tibet [J].
Chen, Dan ;
Liu, Xiuxiu ;
Li, Jiujun .
FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS, 2019, 7
[3]   Randomized Controlled Trial of Nonsynchronized Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation versus Nasal CPAP after Extubation of VLBW Infants [J].
Estay, Alberto S. ;
Mariani, Gonzalo L. ;
Alvarez, Claudio A. ;
Milet, Beatriz ;
Agost, Daniel ;
Avila, Claudia P. ;
Roldan, Liliana ;
Abdala, Daniel A. ;
Keller, Rodolfo ;
Galletti, Maria F. ;
Gonzalez, Alvaro .
NEONATOLOGY, 2020, 117 (02) :193-199
[4]  
Gao Ya, 2022, Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue, V34, P80, DOI 10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20210602-00815
[5]  
Huo Meng-Yue, 2020, Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi, V22, P721
[6]   Comparison of non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as post-extubation respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial [J].
Jasani, Bonny ;
Nanavati, Ruchi ;
Kabra, Nandkishor ;
Rajdeo, Shankar ;
Bhandari, Vineet .
JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2016, 29 (10) :1546-1551
[7]   Unsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants after extubation [J].
Kahramaner, Zelal ;
Erdemir, Aydin ;
Turkoglu, Ebru ;
Cosar, Hese ;
Sutcuoglu, Sumer ;
Ozer, Esra Arun .
JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2014, 27 (09) :926-929
[8]   A prospective randomized, controlled trial comparing synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as modes of extubation [J].
Khalaf, MN ;
Brodsky, N ;
Hurley, J ;
Bhandari, V .
PEDIATRICS, 2001, 108 (01) :13-17
[9]   Early nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome [J].
Kishore, M. Sai Sunil ;
Dutta, Sourabh ;
Kumar, Praveen .
ACTA PAEDIATRICA, 2009, 98 (09) :1412-1415
[10]   Nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome: A randomized, controlled, prospective study [J].
Kugelman, Amir ;
Feferkorn, Ido ;
Riskin, Arieh ;
Chistyakov, Irena ;
Kaufman, Bella ;
Bader, David .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS, 2007, 150 (05) :521-526