High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in term infants.
Respiratory failure or respiratory distress in infants is the most common reason for non-elective admission to hospitals and neonatal intensive care units. Non-invasive methods of respiratory support have become the preferred mode of treating respiratory problems as they avoid some of the complications associated with intubation and mechanical ventilation. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy is increasingly being used as a method of non-invasive respiratory support. However, the evidence pertaining to its use in term infants (defined as infants ≥ 37 weeks gestational age to the end of the neonatal period (up to one month postnatal age)) is limited and there is no consensus of opinion regarding the safety and efficacy HFNC in this population.
To assess the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for respiratory support in term infants when compared with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support.
We searched the following databases in December 2022: Cochrane CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; LILACS; Web of Science; Scopus. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and performed a supplementary search of Google Scholar.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in infants ≥ 37 weeks gestational age up to one month postnatal age (the end of the neonatal period).
Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed a meta-analysis using mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For statistically significant RRs, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence for clinically important outcomes.
We included eight studies (654 participants) in this review. Six of these studies (625 participants) contributed data to our primary analyses. Four studies contributed to our comparison of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for respiratory support in term infants. The outcome of death was reported in two studies (439 infants) but there were no events in either group. HFNC may have little to no effect on treatment failure, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.04; 3 trials, 452 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome of chronic lung disease (need for supplemental oxygen at 28 days of life) was reported in one study (375 participants) but there were no events in either group. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support (any form of non-invasive respiratory support with or without supplemental oxygen), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.17 days, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.61; 4 trials, 530 infants; very low-certainty evidence). HFNC likely results in little to no difference in the length of stay at the intensive care unit (ICU) (MD 0.90 days, 95% CI -0.31 to 2.12; 3 trials, 452 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC may reduce the incidence of nasal trauma (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.66; 1 trial, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and abdominal overdistension (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71; 1 trial, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Two studies contributed to our analysis of HFNC versus low flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (LFNC) (supplemental oxygen up to a maximum flow rate of 2 L/min). The outcome of death was reported in both studies (95 infants) but there were no events in either group. The evidence suggests that HFNC may reduce treatment failure slightly (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92; 2 trials, 95 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported results for the outcome of chronic lung disease (need for supplemental oxygen at 28 days of life). HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support (MD -0.07 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.69; 1 trial, 74 infants; very low-certainty evidence), length of stay at the ICU (MD 0.49 days, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.81; 1 trial, 74 infants; very low-certainty evidence), or hospital length of stay (MD -0.60 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 0.86; 2 trials, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse events was an outcome reported in both studies (95 infants) but there were no events in either group. The risk of bias across outcomes was generally low, although there were some concerns of bias. The certainty of evidence across outcomes ranged from moderate to very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency.
When compared with CPAP, HFNC may result in little to no difference in treatment failure. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support, but the evidence is very uncertain. HFNC likely results in little to no difference in the length of stay at the intensive care unit. HFNC may reduce the incidence of nasal trauma and abdominal overdistension, but the evidence is very uncertain. When compared with LFNC, HFNC may reduce treatment failure slightly. HFNC may have little to no effect on the duration of respiratory support, length of stay at the ICU, or hospital length of stay, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is insufficient evidence to enable the formulation of evidence-based guidelines on the use of HFNC for respiratory support in term infants. Larger, methodologically robust trials are required to further evaluate the possible health benefits or harms of HFNC in this patient population.
Dopper A
，Steele M
，Bogossian F
，Hough J
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration for prevention of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome.
Laryngeal mask airway surfactant administration (S-LMA) has the potential benefit of surfactant administration whilst avoiding endotracheal intubation and ventilation, ventilator-induced lung injury and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).
To evaluate the benefits and harms of S-LMA either as prophylaxis or treatment (rescue) compared to placebo, no treatment, or intratracheal surfactant administration via an endotracheal tube (ETT) with the intent to rapidly extubate (InSurE) or extubate at standard criteria (S-ETT) or via other less-invasive surfactant administration (LISA) methods on morbidity and mortality in preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trial registries in December 2022.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster- or quasi-RCTs of S-LMA compared to placebo, no treatment, or other routes of administration (nebulised, pharyngeal instillation of surfactant before the first breath, thin endotracheal catheter surfactant administration or intratracheal surfactant instillation) on morbidity and mortality in preterm infants at risk of RDS. We considered published, unpublished and ongoing trials.
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
We included eight trials (seven new to this update) recruiting 510 newborns. Five trials (333 infants) compared S-LMA with surfactant administration via ETT with InSurE. One trial (48 infants) compared S-LMA with surfactant administration via ETT with S-ETT, and two trials (129 infants) compared S-LMA with no surfactant administration. We found no studies comparing S-LMA with LISA techniques or prophylactic or early S-LMA. S-LMA versus surfactant administration via InSurE S-LMA may have little or no effect on the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 8.34, I 2 = not applicable (NA) as 1 study had 0 events; risk difference (RD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.10; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 110 infants; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation at any time (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.78; I 2 = 27%; RD -0.14, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.06, I 2 = 89%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 17; 5 studies, 333 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, this was limited to four studies (236 infants) using analgesia or sedation for the InSurE group. There was little or no difference for air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.98; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 333 infants (based on 3 studies as 2 studies had 0 events); low-certainty evidence); BPD among survivors to 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.52; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 264 infants (based on 3 studies as 1 study had 0 events); low-certainty evidence); or death (all causes) during the first hospitalisation (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.60; I 2 = NA as 2 studies had 0 events; 3 studies, 203 infants; low-certainty evidence). Neurosensory disability was not reported. Intraventricular haemorrhage ( IVH) grades III and IV were reported among the study groups (1 study, 50 infants). S-LMA versus surfactant administration via S-ETT No study reported death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. S-LMA may reduce the use of mechanical ventilation at any time compared with S-ETT (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71; RD -0.54, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.34; NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 3; 1 study, 48 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether S-LMA compared with S-ETT reduces air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 59.75), IVH grade III or IV (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 59.75) and death (all causes) during the first hospitalisation (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.37) (1 study, 48 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported BPD to 36 weeks' PMA or neurosensory disability. S-LMA versus no surfactant administration Rescue surfactant could be used in both groups. There may be little or no difference in death or BPD at 36 weeks (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.22; I 2 = 58%; RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation at any time with S-LMA compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure without surfactant (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; I 2 = 0%; RD -0.24, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.08; I 2 = 0%; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 13; 2 studies, 129 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in air leak during first hospitalisation (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.88; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence) or BPD to 36 weeks' PMA (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.22; I 2 = 58%; 2 studies, 129 infants; low-certainty evidence). There were no events in either group for death during the first hospitalisation (1 study, 103 infants) or IVH grade III and IV (1 study, 103 infants). No study reported neurosensory disability.
In preterm infants less than 36 weeks' PMA, rescue S-LMA may have little or no effect on the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA. However, it may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation at any time. This benefit is limited to trials reporting the use of analgesia or sedation in the InSurE and S-ETT groups. There is low- to very-low certainty evidence for no or little difference in neonatal morbidities and mortality. Long-term outcomes are largely unreported. In preterm infants less than 32 weeks' PMA or less than 1500 g, there are insufficient data to support or refute the use of S-LMA in clinical practice. Adequately powered trials are required to determine the effect of S-LMA for prevention or early treatment of RDS in extremely preterm infants. S-LMA use should be limited to clinical trials in this group of infants.
Abdel-Latif ME
，Walker E
，Osborn DA
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
