Image 5_A comparative analysis of non-invasive respiratory support modalities in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: a network meta-analysis.tif
Aim<p>The purpose of this study is to compare different non-invasive respiratory support methods for the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF).</p>Methods<p>The network meta-analysis was conducted based on studies from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and W...
محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| مؤلفون آخرون: | |
| منشور في: |
2025
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
| الملخص: | Aim<p>The purpose of this study is to compare different non-invasive respiratory support methods for the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF).</p>Methods<p>The network meta-analysis was conducted based on studies from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from their inception to September 10, 2024. The outcomes was treatment failure, all-cause mortality, intubation, dyspnea score, length of stay in hospital, respiratory rate, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO<sub>2</sub>), and complications. The results of both direct and indirect comparisons were quantitatively assessed using weighted mean differences or relative risks with their respective 95% confidence intervals, and graphically depicted in forest plots. Additionally, the rank probabilities were presented, demonstrating the likelihood of each non-invasive respiratory support method being the most effective across various measured outcomes.</p>Results<p>Nineteen studies (2,022 participants) were included. The results indicated that the probability of treatment failure with face mask non-invasive ventilation (NIV) was lower than that of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.93) and conventional oxygen treatment (COT) (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16, 3.03). Face mask NIV demonstrated superior performance in dyspnea score and PaCO<sub>2</sub> compared to HFNC, helmet NIV, and COT. The length of stay in the hospital for face mask NIV was relatively longer compared to HFNC (WMD: −0.73, 95% CI: −1.35, −0.10) and COT (WMD: −1.09, 95% CI: −2.00, −0.18), and the probability of complications was higher than with HFNC. The rank probability suggested that COT had the lowest likelihood of intubation and all-cause mortality, while helmet NIV may have the best effect on improving respiratory rate.</p>Conclusion<p>Concerning treatment failure, dyspnea score, and PaCO<sub>2</sub> improvement in patients with AHRF, face mask NIV may outperform other methods. For selected patients with AHRF, face mask NIV might be considered for potential first-line method. This study provides a certain level of evidence-based support for the management and treatment of AHRF, but more research is still needed in the future to determine the optimal non-invasive respiratory support method for treating patients with AHRF. In clinic, the efficacy of face mask NIV for better outcomes in patients with AHRH still requires validation.</p> |
|---|