Prehospital
Literature Index
Airway & ventilation

Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Daniele Boghi, Kyung Woo Kim, Jun Hyun Kim, Sang-Il Lee, Ji Yeon Kim, Kyung-Tae Kim, Andrea Ambrosoli, Giovanni Guarneri, Giovanni Landoni, Luca Cabrini

Pediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2022-12-13 · Meta-analysis

Read at publisher · PubMed

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) in pediatric patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov with a last update on July 31, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs comparing NIV with any comparator (standard oxygen therapy and high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]) in pediatric patients with ARF. We excluded studies performed on neonates and on chronic respiratory failure patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Baseline characteristics, intubation rate, mortality, and hospital and ICU length of stays were extracted by trained investigators. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 15 RCTs (2,679 patients) for the final analyses. The intubation rate was 109 of 945 (11.5%) in the NIV group, and 158 of 1,086 (14.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 0.791; 95% CI, 0.629-0.996; p = 0.046; I2 = 0%; number needed to treat = 31). Findings were strengthened after removing studies with intervention duration shorter than an hour and after excluding studies with cross-over as rescue treatment. There was no difference in mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stays. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients, NIV applied for ARF might reduce the intubation rate compared with standard oxygen therapy or HFNC. No difference in mortality was observed.

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

Tags

Children · CPAP & NIV · High-flow nasal oxygen · Other drugs · Oxygen

Related articles