Noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The clinical benefits of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is still inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the effect of NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT)/high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in this patient population. We searched for relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINHAL, Web of Science up to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV with COT/HFNC in AHRF. The primary outcome was the tracheal intubation rate. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, and hospital mortality. We applied the GRADE approach to grade the strength of the evidence. Seventeen RCTs that recruited 1738 patients were included in our meta-analysis. When comparing NIV versus COT/HFNC, the pooled risk ratio (RR) for the tracheal intubation rate was 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.89, p = 0.005, I2 = 72.4%, low certainty of evidence. There were no significant differences in ICU mortality (pooled RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.26), p = 0.45, I2 = 64.6%) and hospital mortality (pooled RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-1.00, p = 0.05, I2 = 27.4%). Subgroup analysis revealed that NIV application with helmet was significantly associated with a lower intubation rate than NIV with face mask. NIV did not show a significant reduction in intubation rate compared to HFNC. In conclusion, NIV application in patients with medical illness and AHRF was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation compared to COT. NIV with helmet and HFNC are promising strategies to avoid tracheal intubation in this patient population and warrant further studies. NIV application had no effect on mortality.The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018087342).

The role of sedation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a minimally invasive procedure that has become an important tool in diagnosis and staging of mediastinal lymph node (LN) lesions in lung cancer. Adequate sedation is an important part of the procedure since it provides patient's comfort and potentially increases diagnostic yield. We aimed to compare deep sedation (DS) versus moderate sedation (MS) in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA procedure. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched for English studies of clinical trials comparing the two different methods of sedations in EBUS-TBNA until December 2015. The overall diagnostic yield, LN size sampling, procedural time, complication, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Six studies with 3000 patients which compared two different modalities of sedation in patients performing EBUS-TBNA were included in the study. The overall diagnostic yield of DS method was 52.3%-100% and MS method was 46.1%-85.7%. The overall sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA of DS method was 98.15%-100% as compared with 80%-98.08% in MS method. The overall procedural times were 27.2-50.9 min and 20.6-44.1 min in DS and MS groups, respectively. The numbers of LN sampled were between 1.33-3.20 nodes and 1.36-2.80 nodes in DS and MS groups, respectively. The numbers of passes per LN were 3.21-3.70 passes in DS group as compared to 2.73-3.00 passes in MS group. The mean of LN size was indifferent between two groups. None of the studies included reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Using MS in EBUS-TBNA has comparable diagnostic yield and safety profile to DS. The decision on the method of sedation for EBUS-TBNA should be individually selected based on operator experience, patient preference, as well as duration of the anticipated procedure.