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.
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号