Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022
Transnasal High-Flow Oxygen Therapy versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Treatment of COPD with Type II Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis.
Источник пометил эту публикацию как отозванную.
СтатьяМетаанализОтозванная публикацияНазвание 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.
Liu Wei, Zhu Mingli, Xia Liuqin, Yang Xiangying, Huang Pei, Sun Yanming, Shen Ye, Ma Jianping
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of transnasal high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNT) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV) in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with type II respiratory failure.
METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS) on the efficacy of HFNT and NIV in the treatment of COPD. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software after two researchers screened literatures, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 948 patients were included in 12 RCTS. Comprehensive analysis results showed that the HFNC group had higher levels of 12 h-PAO2, 48 h-PACO2 and, 48 h-pH than the NIV group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in 24 h-PAO2 and 72 h-PAO2, 12 h-PACO2, 24 h-PACO2 and 72 h-PACO2, 24 h-pH, 48 h-pH, and 72 h-pH between the two groups after treatment (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NIV, HFNC does not increase the treatment failure rate in COPD patients with type II respiratory failure, and HFNC has better comfort and tolerance, which is a new potential respiratory support treatment for COPD patients with type II respiratory failure.
METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS) on the efficacy of HFNT and NIV in the treatment of COPD. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software after two researchers screened literatures, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS: A total of 948 patients were included in 12 RCTS. Comprehensive analysis results showed that the HFNC group had higher levels of 12 h-PAO2, 48 h-PACO2 and, 48 h-pH than the NIV group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in 24 h-PAO2 and 72 h-PAO2, 12 h-PACO2, 24 h-PACO2 and 72 h-PACO2, 24 h-pH, 48 h-pH, and 72 h-pH between the two groups after treatment (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NIV, HFNC does not increase the treatment failure rate in COPD patients with type II respiratory failure, and HFNC has better comfort and tolerance, which is a new potential respiratory support treatment for COPD patients with type II respiratory failure.