Respiratory care · 2024
Home Respiratory Strategies in Patients With COPD With Chronic Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure.
СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pitre Tyler, Abbasi Saad, Kachkovski George V, Burns Levi, Huan Peter, Mah Jasmine, Crimi Claudia, Cortegiani Andrea, Rochwerg Bram, Zeraatkar Dena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may improve chronic hypercarbia in COPD and patient-important outcomes. The efficacy of home high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as an alternative is unclear.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of subjects from inception to March 31, 2023, and updated the search on July 14, 2023. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIV, HFNC, or standard care in adult subjects with COPD with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Outcomes included mortality, COPD exacerbations, hospitalizations, and quality of life (St George Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]).
RESULTS: We analyzed 24 RCTs (1,850 subjects). We found that NIV may reduce the risk of death compared to standard care (relative risk 0.82 [95% CI 0.66-1.00]) and probably reduces exacerbations (relative risk 0.71 [95% CI 0.58-0.87]). HFNC probably reduces exacerbations compared to standard care (relative risk 0.77 [0.68-0.88]), but its effect on mortality is uncertain (relative risk 1.20 [95% CI 0.63-2.28]). HFNC probably improves SGRQ scores (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -12.27 to -1.77]) and may reduce hospitalizations (relative risk 0.87 [0.69-1.09]) compared to standard care. No significant difference was observed between HFNC and NIV in reducing exacerbations.
CONCLUSIONS: Both NIV and HFNC reduce exacerbation risks in subjects with COPD compared to standard care. HFNC may offer advantages in improving quality of life.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of subjects from inception to March 31, 2023, and updated the search on July 14, 2023. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIV, HFNC, or standard care in adult subjects with COPD with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Outcomes included mortality, COPD exacerbations, hospitalizations, and quality of life (St George Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]).
RESULTS: We analyzed 24 RCTs (1,850 subjects). We found that NIV may reduce the risk of death compared to standard care (relative risk 0.82 [95% CI 0.66-1.00]) and probably reduces exacerbations (relative risk 0.71 [95% CI 0.58-0.87]). HFNC probably reduces exacerbations compared to standard care (relative risk 0.77 [0.68-0.88]), but its effect on mortality is uncertain (relative risk 1.20 [95% CI 0.63-2.28]). HFNC probably improves SGRQ scores (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -12.27 to -1.77]) and may reduce hospitalizations (relative risk 0.87 [0.69-1.09]) compared to standard care. No significant difference was observed between HFNC and NIV in reducing exacerbations.
CONCLUSIONS: Both NIV and HFNC reduce exacerbation risks in subjects with COPD compared to standard care. HFNC may offer advantages in improving quality of life.