Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2018
Rapid systematic review shows that using a high-flow nasal cannula is inferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure as first-line support in preterm neonates.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Conte Francesca, Orfeo Luigi, Gizzi Camilla, Massenzi Luca, Fasola Salvatore
Аннотация
AIM: We reviewed using a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as first-line support for preterm neonates with, or at risk of, respiratory distress.
METHODS: This rapid systematic review covered biomedical databases up to June 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The reference lists of the studies and relevant reviews we included were also screened. We performed the study selection, data extraction, study quality assessment, meta-analysis and quality of evidence assessment following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.
RESULTS: Pooled results from six RCTs covering 1227 neonates showed moderate-quality evidence that HFNC was associated with a higher rate of failure than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates of at least 28 weeks of gestation, with a risk ratio of 1.57. Low-quality evidence showed no significant differences between HFNC and NCPAP in the need for intubation and bronchopulmonary dysplasia rate. HFNC yielded a lower rate of nasal injury (risk ratio 0.50). When HFNC failed, intubation was avoided in some neonates by switching them to NCPAP.
CONCLUSION: HFNC had higher failure rates than NCPAP when used as first-line support. Subsequently switching to NCPAP sometimes avoided intubation. Data on the most immature neonates were lacking.
METHODS: This rapid systematic review covered biomedical databases up to June 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The reference lists of the studies and relevant reviews we included were also screened. We performed the study selection, data extraction, study quality assessment, meta-analysis and quality of evidence assessment following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.
RESULTS: Pooled results from six RCTs covering 1227 neonates showed moderate-quality evidence that HFNC was associated with a higher rate of failure than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm neonates of at least 28 weeks of gestation, with a risk ratio of 1.57. Low-quality evidence showed no significant differences between HFNC and NCPAP in the need for intubation and bronchopulmonary dysplasia rate. HFNC yielded a lower rate of nasal injury (risk ratio 0.50). When HFNC failed, intubation was avoided in some neonates by switching them to NCPAP.
CONCLUSION: HFNC had higher failure rates than NCPAP when used as first-line support. Subsequently switching to NCPAP sometimes avoided intubation. Data on the most immature neonates were lacking.