Retour
Article pour les cliniciens

La ventilation non invasive pour l'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë non hypercapnique: une revue systématique et méta-analyse.



  • Xu XP
  • Zhang XC
  • Hu SL
  • Xu JY
  • Xie JF
  • Liu SQ, et al.
Crit Care Med. 2017 Jul;45(7):e727-e733. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002361. (Review)
PMID: 28441237
Lire le résumé Lire le texte intégral
Disciplines
  • Médecin hospitalier/Hospitaliste
    Relevance - 6/7
    Intérêt médiatique  - 6/7
  • Médecine interne (voir sous-spécialités ci-dessous)
    Relevance - 6/7
    Intérêt médiatique  - 6/7
  • - Respirologie/Pneumologie
    Relevance - 6/7
    Intérêt médiatique  - 5/7
  • - Intensiviste/Soins intensifs
    Relevance - 5/7
    Intérêt médiatique  - 5/7

Résumé (en anglais)

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory failure unrelated to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiogenic pulmonary edema.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and bibliographies of articles were retrieved inception until June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing application of noninvasive ventilation with standard oxygen therapy in adults with acute hypoxemic nonhypercapnic respiratory failure were included. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients were excluded. The primary outcome was intubation rate; ICU mortality and hospital mortality were secondary outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION: Demographic variables, noninvasive ventilation application, and outcomes were retrieved. Internal validity was assessed using the risk of bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies (1,480 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed by using a random effects model. Compared with standard oxygen therapy, the pooled effect showed that noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced intubation rate with a summary risk ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44-0.79; p = 0.0004). Furthermore, hospital mortality was also significantly reduced (risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.87; p = 0.02). Subgroup meta-analysis showed that the application of bilevel positive support ventilation (bilevel positive airway pressure) was associated with a reduction in ICU mortality (p = 0.007). Helmet noninvasive ventilation could reduce hospital mortality (p = 0.0004), whereas face/nasal mask noninvasive ventilation could not.

CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation decreased endotracheal intubation rates and hospital mortality in acute hypoxemia nonhypercapnic respiratory failure excluding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients. There is no sufficient scientific evidence to recommend bilevel positive airway pressure or helmet due to the limited number of trials available. Large rigorous randomized trials are needed to answer these questions definitely.


Commentaires cliniques (en anglais)

Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists

The meta-analysis reinforces the value of non-invasive ventilation over oxygen therapy alone for patients with hypoxemic, non-hypercapneic respiratory failure excluding COPD, and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. I suspect most practitioners already know this. For those physicians who are not familiar with non-invasive ventilation, this article might be one more prompt to become familiar with their hospital's protocol for initiating this intervention.

Hospital Doctor/Hospitalists

Article focuses on effect of NIV in respiratory failure not from COPD or CHF. Seems the first meta-analysis focused on this question and the authors thoughtfully build on the previous evidence. From this standpoint, I think it's interesting. It is poorly edited, which always makes me wonder whether there were other things in the article that were overlooked (key statements not correct or even data representation with small errors). Or perhaps I am being too picky.

Internal Medicine

I found the abstract confusing.

Respirology/Pulmonology

Meta-analysis showing that non-invasive ventilation reduces intubation and mortality in hypoxemic non-hypercapneic respiratory failure from causes other than COPD and heart failure (for which we already know it works). Useful extension of the evidence beyond these two diseases. Individual trials were mostly underpowered, so the meta-analysis adds new information. Heterogeneity was moderate to high and they could have done a better job trying to account for it.

Respirology/Pulmonology

A detailed look at studies of non-invasive ventilation in hypoxemic non-hypercapneic respiratory failure in patients without COPD or CHF. The meta-analysis shows benefit in this patient population. The study gives more credibility to what has become common practice in many critical care units and emergency departments.

Voulez-vous savoir ce que lisent les professionnels? Inscrivez-vous pour accéder gratuitement à tous les contenus professionnels.

S'inscrire