Objective
To compare the safety and effectiveness between helmet and face mask noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).
Methods
English databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Chinese databases involved Wanfang Data, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Chinese Biological Medicine Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing helmet and face mask NIMV for patients with ARF were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using Review manager 5.1.0.
Results
Twelve trials with a total of 569 patients were eligible. Our meta-analysis showed that, comparing with face mask, helmet could significantly decrease the incidences of intolerance [risk ratio (RR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09−0.39], facial skin ulcer (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08−0.43) and aerophagia (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06−0.37), reduce respiratory rate [mean difference (MD) -3.10; 95% CI -4.85 to -1.34], intubation rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26−0.59) and hospital mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39−0.99) in patients with ARF, and improve oxygenation index in patients with hypoxemic ARF (MD 55.23; 95% CI 31.37−79.09). However, subgroupanalysis for hypercapnic ARF revealed that PaCO2 was significantly reduced in face mask group compared with helmet group (MD 5.34; 95% CI 3.41−7.27).
Conclusion
NIMV with helmet can improve the patient’s tolerance, reduce adverse events, increase oxygenation effect, and decrease intubation rate and hospital mortality comparing to face mask. However, the low number of patients from included studies may preclude strong conclusions. Large RCTs are still needed to provide more robust evidence.
INTESTINAL PERFORATIONS SECONDARY TO MECHANICAL VENTILATION WITH NASAL PRONGS (NP) OR FACE MASK (FM)
