Effects of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation on weaning: A systematic review with meta-analysis

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Australian Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1016/j.aucc.2025.101199
Helder B. Duarte PT , Ueidson J.S. Batista PT, BPT , Paula M. Oliveira PT, BPT , Dimitri Gusmao-Flores MD, PhD , Bruno P. Martinez PT, PhD
{"title":"Effects of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation on weaning: A systematic review with meta-analysis","authors":"Helder B. Duarte PT ,&nbsp;Ueidson J.S. Batista PT, BPT ,&nbsp;Paula M. Oliveira PT, BPT ,&nbsp;Dimitri Gusmao-Flores MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Bruno P. Martinez PT, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.aucc.2025.101199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) on reintubation, postextubation respiratory failure, length of stay (LOS), and mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU).</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>A systematic review of the databases followed by meta-analysis was conducted. We included randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials conducted in adults, with a mechanical ventilation time &gt;48 h, who had good performance in the spontaneous breathing test and compared the use of prophylactic NIV with oxygen supplementation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eleven studies were included in this review. There was a difference in favour of prophylactic NIV for the outcome reintubation (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32, 0.74), ICU mortality (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.71), hospital mortality (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.85), ICU LOS (median [MD]: -2.86; 95% CI: −5.47, −0.24), and postextubation respiratory failure development (OR: 0.28; 95 % CI: 0.12, 0.67). There was no difference noted for hospital LOS (MD: -0 0.42; 95% CI: -3.42, 2.59). In the subgroup analysis, the use of rescue NIV, mainly in the control group, showed no statistically significant difference in the outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The use of prophylactic NIV reduced reintubation rates, ICU and hospital LOS, and mortality. These findings support the recommendation for its use in daily practice. Rescue NIV may have reduced the reintubation rate in control group who underwent the procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Prospero registration</h3><div>CRD42022381099.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51239,"journal":{"name":"Australian Critical Care","volume":"38 3","pages":"Article 101199"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1036731425000293","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) on reintubation, postextubation respiratory failure, length of stay (LOS), and mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Method

A systematic review of the databases followed by meta-analysis was conducted. We included randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials conducted in adults, with a mechanical ventilation time >48 h, who had good performance in the spontaneous breathing test and compared the use of prophylactic NIV with oxygen supplementation.

Results

Eleven studies were included in this review. There was a difference in favour of prophylactic NIV for the outcome reintubation (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32, 0.74), ICU mortality (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.71), hospital mortality (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33, 0.85), ICU LOS (median [MD]: -2.86; 95% CI: −5.47, −0.24), and postextubation respiratory failure development (OR: 0.28; 95 % CI: 0.12, 0.67). There was no difference noted for hospital LOS (MD: -0 0.42; 95% CI: -3.42, 2.59). In the subgroup analysis, the use of rescue NIV, mainly in the control group, showed no statistically significant difference in the outcomes.

Conclusion

The use of prophylactic NIV reduced reintubation rates, ICU and hospital LOS, and mortality. These findings support the recommendation for its use in daily practice. Rescue NIV may have reduced the reintubation rate in control group who underwent the procedure.

Prospero registration

CRD42022381099.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Critical Care
Australian Critical Care NURSING-NURSING
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Critical Care is the official journal of the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN). It is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal, providing clinically relevant research, reviews and articles of interest to the critical care community. Australian Critical Care publishes peer-reviewed scholarly papers that report research findings, research-based reviews, discussion papers and commentaries which are of interest to an international readership of critical care practitioners, educators, administrators and researchers. Interprofessional articles are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and variability in use of physical restraints in intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis Effects of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation on weaning: A systematic review with meta-analysis Harnessing machine learning for predicting successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: A systematic review Multicentre prospective study to establish a risk prediction model on pressure injury in the neonatal intensive and intermediate care units Effects of compassion fatigue, structural empowerment, and psychological empowerment on the caring behaviours of intensive care unit nurses in China: A structural equation modelling analysis
×
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