Ventilación no invasiva con presión positiva (CPAP o doble nivel) para el edema agudo de pulmón cardiogénico / Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

No disponible

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I2 = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I2 = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.

Exercise interventions for shoulder dysfunction in patients treated for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder dysfunction is a common problem in patients treated for head and neck cancer. Both neck dissections and radiotherapy can cause morbidity to the shoulder joint. Exercise interventions have been suggested as a treatment option for this population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exercise interventions for the treatment of shoulder dysfunction caused by the treatment of head and neck cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 July 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of exercise therapy compared with any other intervention in patients with shoulder dysfunction due to treatment of head and neck cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from studies. We contacted study authors for information not provided in the published articles. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 104 people were included. We classified one study as having low risk of bias; the others had some limitations and we classified them as having high risk of bias.Two studies (one with low risk of bias and the other with high risk of bias) applied progressive resistance training (PRT) combined with range of motion exercises and stretching; the comparison group received standard care. Pooled data demonstrated that PRT can improve shoulder pain (mean difference (MD) -6.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.20 to -0.31) and shoulder disability (MD -8.48; 95% CI -15.07 to -1.88), both measured using the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) (range 0 to 100). Similarly, secondary outcomes were also improved: active range of motion for external rotation (MD 14.51 degrees; 95% CI 7.87 to 21.14), passive range of motion for abduction (MD 7.65 degrees; 95% CI 0.64 to 14.66), forward flexion (MD 6.20 degrees; 95% CI 0.69 to 11.71), external rotation (MD 7.17 degrees; 95% CI 2.20 to 12.14) and horizontal abduction (MD 7.34 degrees; 95% CI 2.86 to 11.83). Strength and resistance of scapular muscles was assessed in one study and the results showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT. The studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in quality of life. Only two non-serious adverse events were described in the PRT group compared with none in the standard care group.One study with high risk of bias used a broad spectrum of techniques including free active exercises, stretching and postural care for a period of three months following surgery. This study did not demonstrate a difference between the exercise group and routine postoperative physiotherapy care in shoulder function and quality of life, but serious methodological limitations could explain this. No serious adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence from two RCTs demonstrated that PRT is more effective than standard physiotherapy treatment for shoulder dysfunction in patients treated for head and neck cancer, improving pain, disability and range of motion of the shoulder joint, but it does not improve quality of life. However, although statistically significant the measured benefits of the intervention may be small. Other exercise regimes were not shown to be effective compared to routine postoperative physiotherapy. Further studies which apply other exercise interventions in head and neck cancer patients in the early postoperative and radiotherapy period are needed, with long-term follow-up.