scholarly journals Bi-Level Noninvasive Ventilation in Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neonatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (3) ◽  
pp. 264-273
Author(s):  
Anne Lee Solevåg ◽  
Po-Yin Cheung ◽  
Georg M. Schmölzer

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Bi-level noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been used in respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) as primary treatment, post-extubation, and to treat apnea. This review summarizes studies on bi-level NIV in premature infants with RDS. Nonsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nsNIPPV) and synchronized NIPPV (SNIPPV) use pressure settings ≥ those used during mechanical ventilation (MV), and biphasic continuous positive airway pressure (BiPAP) use two nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) levels ≤4 cm H<sub>2</sub>O apart. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review (Medline OVID and Pubmed) and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Primary outcomes were bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and mortality. Secondary outcomes included NIV failure (intubation) and extubation failure (re-intubation). Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between NIV modes (RevMan v 5.3, Copenhagen, Denmark). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twenty-four randomized controlled trials that largely did not correct for mean airway pressure (MAP) and used outdated ventilators were included. Compared with NCPAP, both nsNIPPV and SNIPPV resulted in less re-intubation (RR 0.88 with 95% CI (0.80, 0.97) and RR 0.20 (0.10, 0.38), respectively) and BPD (RR 0.69 (0.49, 0.97) and RR 0.51 (0.29, 0.88), respectively). nsNIPPV also resulted in less intubation (RR 0.57 (0.45, 0.73) versus NCPAP, with no difference in mortality. One study showed less intubation in BiPAP versus NCPAP. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Bi-level NIV versus NCPAP may reduce MV and BPD in premature infants with RDS. Studies comparing equivalent MAP utilizing currently available machines are needed.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Junhai ◽  
Hu Bangchuan ◽  
Gong Shijin ◽  
Yu Yihua ◽  
Yan Jing ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been described many years, however, it is still unclear whether APRV improves outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods 3 databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until 8 August 2019. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined. Results A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included with 360 ARDS patients. The Meta analysis showed that the mean arterial pressure (MAP) in APRV group is higher than traditional mechanical ventilation group [MD = 2.35, 95% CI=(1.05,3.64), P = 0.0004], and the airway peak pressure (Ppeak) is lower in APRV group with statistical difference [MD=-2.04,95% CI=(-3.33,-0.75), P = 0.002]. However, no significant beneficial effect on oxygen index (PaO2/FiO2) was shown between two groups (MD = 26.24, 95% CI=(-26.50,78.97), P = 0.33). Compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, APRV significantly improved 28-day mortality [RR = 0.66, 95% CI=(0.47,0.94), P = 0.02]. Conclusions For critically ill patients with ARDS, application of APRV is associated with the increase of MAP, the reduction of the airway Ppeak and 28-day mortality, while there is no sufficient evidence to support the APRV is superior to conventional mechanical ventilation in PaO2/FiO2.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document