Prophylactic non-invasive positive pressure ventilation reduces complications and length of hospital stay after invasive thoracic procedures: a systematic review

IF 9.7 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jphys.2024.08.008
Elinaldo da Conceição dos Santos , Renan Lima Monteiro , Juliana Ribeiro Fonseca Franco de Macedo , William Poncin , Adriana Claudia Lunardi
{"title":"Prophylactic non-invasive positive pressure ventilation reduces complications and length of hospital stay after invasive thoracic procedures: a systematic review","authors":"Elinaldo da Conceição dos Santos ,&nbsp;Renan Lima Monteiro ,&nbsp;Juliana Ribeiro Fonseca Franco de Macedo ,&nbsp;William Poncin ,&nbsp;Adriana Claudia Lunardi","doi":"10.1016/j.jphys.2024.08.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><div>In patients undergoing invasive thoracic procedures, what are the effects of prophylactic non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV)?</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Patients undergoing invasive thoracic procedures.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP).</div></div><div><h3>Outcome measures</h3><div>Length of hospital stay, postoperative pulmonary complications, need for tracheal intubation, mortality, hypoxaemia, pulmonary function and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed for all outcomes. Subgroup analyses estimated the effects of CPAP and BIPAP independently.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixteen trials with 1,814 participants were included. The average quality of the included studies was fair. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that NIV reduces postoperative pulmonary complications (RD –0.09, 95% CI –0.15 to –0.04) without increasing the rate of adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.04). Low certainty evidence indicated that NIV reduces length of hospital stay (MD –1.4 days, 95% CI –2.2 to –0.5) compared with usual care. The effects on intubation and mortality rates were very close to no effect, indicating that NIV is safe. Subgroup analyses showed that the evidence for CPAP had more precise estimates that that for BiPAP.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>NIV reduces postoperative pulmonary complications and length of stay after invasive chest procedures without increasing the risk of adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>PROSPERO CRD42015019004.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1836955324000845","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Question

In patients undergoing invasive thoracic procedures, what are the effects of prophylactic non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIV)?

Design

Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach.

Participants

Patients undergoing invasive thoracic procedures.

Intervention

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP).

Outcome measures

Length of hospital stay, postoperative pulmonary complications, need for tracheal intubation, mortality, hypoxaemia, pulmonary function and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed for all outcomes. Subgroup analyses estimated the effects of CPAP and BIPAP independently.

Results

Sixteen trials with 1,814 participants were included. The average quality of the included studies was fair. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that NIV reduces postoperative pulmonary complications (RD –0.09, 95% CI –0.15 to –0.04) without increasing the rate of adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.04). Low certainty evidence indicated that NIV reduces length of hospital stay (MD –1.4 days, 95% CI –2.2 to –0.5) compared with usual care. The effects on intubation and mortality rates were very close to no effect, indicating that NIV is safe. Subgroup analyses showed that the evidence for CPAP had more precise estimates that that for BiPAP.

Conclusion

NIV reduces postoperative pulmonary complications and length of stay after invasive chest procedures without increasing the risk of adverse events.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42015019004.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预防性无创正压通气可减少侵入性胸腔手术后的并发症和住院时间:系统性综述。
问题在接受侵入性胸腔手术的患者中,预防性无创正压通气(NIV)的效果如何?对随机试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。采用 PEDro 量表评估方法学质量,并采用 GRADE 方法评估证据的确定性:干预:干预措施:持续气道正压(CPAP)或双水平气道正压(BiPAP):住院时间、术后肺部并发症、气管插管需求、死亡率、低氧血症、肺功能和不良事件。对所有结果进行了 Meta 分析。亚组分析分别估算了 CPAP 和 BIPAP 的效果:结果:共纳入 16 项试验,1,814 名参与者。纳入研究的平均质量尚可。中度确定性证据表明,NIV可减少术后肺部并发症(RD -0.09,95% CI -0.15至-0.04),但不会增加不良事件的发生率(RD 0.01,95% CI -0.02至0.04)。低确定性证据表明,与常规护理相比,NIV可缩短住院时间(MD -1.4天,95% CI -2.2至-0.5)。对插管率和死亡率的影响非常接近于无影响,这表明 NIV 是安全的。分组分析表明,CPAP 的证据比 BiPAP 的证据有更精确的估计值:结论:NIV 可减少胸部侵入性手术后的肺部并发症和住院时间,同时不会增加不良事件的风险:注册:PREMCORD42015019004。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Physiotherapy
Journal of Physiotherapy ORTHOPEDICS-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
69
审稿时长
72 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Physiotherapy is the official journal of the Australian Physiotherapy Association. It aims to publish high-quality research with a significant impact on global physiotherapy practice. The journal's vision is to lead the field in supporting clinicians to access, understand, and implement research evidence that will enhance person-centred care. In January 2008, the Journal of Physiotherapy became the first physiotherapy journal to adhere to the ICMJE requirement of registering randomized trials with a recognized Trial Registry. The journal prioritizes systematic reviews, clinical trials, economic analyses, experimental studies, qualitative studies, epidemiological studies, and observational studies. In January 2014, it also became the first core physiotherapy/physical therapy journal to provide free access to editorials and peer-reviewed original research. The Australian Physiotherapy Association extended their support for excellence in physiotherapy practice by sponsoring open access publication of all Journal of Physiotherapy content in 2016. As a result, all past, present, and future journal articles are freely accessible, and there are no author fees for publication.
期刊最新文献
Critically appraised paper: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention reduces the risk of low back pain recurrence [commentary]. Contents Critically appraised paper: Telerehabilitation consultations with a physiotherapist are non-inferior to in-person consultations for chronic knee pain Critically appraised paper: Telerehabilitation is non-inferior to in-person care for chronic knee pain [commentary] Clinimetrics: Keele STarT MSK tool
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1