Prehospital
Literature Index
Obstetrics & neonatal

Delivery room CPAP in improving outcomes of preterm neonates in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Viraraghavan Vadakkencherry Ramaswamy, Thangaraj Abiramalatha, Tapas Bandyopadhyay, Nasreen Banu Shaik, Abdul Kareem Pullattayil S, Francesco Cavallin, Charles Christoph Roehr, Daniele Trevisanuto

Resuscitation · 2021-10-29 · Meta-analysis

Read at publisher · PubMed

Abstract

AIM: To study the impact of delivery room continuous positive airway pressure (DRCPAP) on outcomes of preterm neonates in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) by comparing with interventions: oxygen supplementation, late DRCPAP, DRCPAP with sustained inflation, DRCPAP with surfactant and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). METHODS: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, WOS and CINAHL searched. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were utilized. Primary outcome was receipt of IMV. RESULTS: Data from 11 of the 18 included studies (4 observational studies, 7 RCTs) enrolling 4210 preterm infants was synthesized. Moderate certainty of evidence (CoE) from NMA of RCTs comparing DRCPAP with surfactant administration versus DRCPAP alone suggested no decrease in subsequent receipt of IMV [Risk ratio (RR); 95% Credible Interval (CrI): 0.73; (0.34, 1.40)]. Very low CoE from observational studies comparing use of DRCPAP versus oxygen supplementation indicated a trend towards decreased IMV [RR; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.75; (0.56-1.00)]. Although moderate CoE from NMA evaluating DRCPAP versus oxygen supplementation showed a trend towards decreased receipt of surfactant, it did not reach statistical significance [RR; 95% CrI: 0.69; (0.44, 1.06)]. Moderate CoE from NMA indicated that none of the interventions, when compared with use of supplemental oxygen alone or with each other decreased mortality or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. LIMITATIONS: CoE was very low for primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Present evidence is not sufficient for use of DRCPAP, but also did not show harm. Since it seems unlikely that there are marked variations in patient physiology to explain the difference in efficacy between high income countries and LMICs, we suggest future research evaluating other barriers in improving the effectiveness of DRCPAP in LMICs.

Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal

Tags

CPAP & NIV · Low- and middle-income settings · Mechanical ventilation · Mortality & survival · Neonates · Other drugs · Oxygen

Related articles