Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Awake Prone Positioning, High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and Non-Invasive Ventilation as Non-Invasive Respiratory Strategies in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Schmid, Benedikt; Griesel, Mirko; Fischer, Anna-Lena; Romero, Carolina S; Metzendorf, Maria-Inti; Weibel, Stephanie; Fichtner, Falk.
Afiliação
  • Schmid B; Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany.
  • Griesel M; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Leipzig Medical Services, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
  • Fischer AL; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Leipzig Medical Services, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
  • Romero CS; Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, General University Hospital, 46014 Valencia, Spain.
  • Metzendorf MI; Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group, Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.
  • Weibel S; Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Wuerzburg, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany.
  • Fichtner F; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Leipzig Medical Services, 04103 Leipzig, Germany.
J Clin Med ; 11(2)2022 Jan 13.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35054084
BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. RESULTS: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI 0.65-1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03-1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71-0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article