Abstract：Objective To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of nasal high-frequency ventilation (nHFV) in the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS). Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBase (Ovid), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Wanfang Data, and Weipu Data to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical efficacy of nHFV and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the treatment of NRDS. A Meta analysis was performed on the included RCTs using Rev Man 5.3 software after data extraction and quality evaluation by Cochrane 5.1.0. Results A total of 4 RCTs involving 218 patients were included. The Meta analysis showed that compared with the nCPAP group, the nHFV group had a significantly better treatment outcome (RR=1.73, 95% CI:1.39-2.15, P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in the incidence rates of intraventricular hemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, pneumothorax and retinopathy of prematurity. Conclusions Compared with nCPAP, nHFV has better clinical efficacy in the treatment of NRDS, without increasing the risk of related complications.
YANG Yu-Lan,WU Ben-Qing,SU Jin-Zhen et al. Clinical efficacy of nasal high-frequency ventilation in treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a Meta analysis[J]. CJCP, 2018, 20(11): 897-903.
Wilkinson D, Andersen C, O'Donnell CP, et al. High flow nasal cannula for respiratory support in preterm infants[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016(2):CD006405.
[3]
Cools F, Offringa M, Askie LM. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015(3):CD000104.
[4]
Wang J, Liu X, Zhu T, et al. Analysis of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome among different gestational segments[J]. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(9):16273-16279.
[5]
Sweet DG, Carnielli V, Greisen G, et al. European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome-2016 Update[J]. Neonatology, 2017, 111(2):107-125.
Mukerji A, Sarmiento K, Lee B, et al. Non-invasive highfrequency ventilation versus bi-phasic continuous positive airway pressure (BP-CPAP) following CPAP failure in infants <1250 g:a pilot randomized controlled trial[J]. J Perinatol, 2017, 37(1):49-53.
[8]
Zhu XW, Zhao JN, Tang SF, et al. Noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants with moderate-severe respiratory distress syndrome:a preliminary report[J]. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2017, 52(8):1038-1042.
Oremus M, Wolfson C, Perrault A, et al. Interrater reliability of the modified Jadad quality scale for systematic reviews of Alzheimer's disease drug trials[J]. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2001, 12(3):232-236.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions:explanation and elaboration[J]. BMJ, 2009, 339:b2700.
Mukerji A, Finelli M, Belik J. Nasal high-frequency oscillation for lung carbon dioxide clearance in the newborn[J]. Neonatology, 2013, 103(3):161-165.
[19]
De Luca D, Carnielli VP, Conti G, et al. Noninvasive high frequency oscillatory ventilation through nasal prongs:bench evaluation of efficacy and mechanics[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2010, 36(12):2094-2100.
[20]
Aktas S, Unal S, Aksu M, et al. Nasal HFOV with binasal cannula appears effective and feasible in ELBW newborns[J]. J Trop Pediatr, 2016, 62(2):165-168.
Costa AC, Schettino Rde C, Ferreira SC. Predictors of extubation failure and reintubation in newborn infants subjected to mechanical ventilation[J]. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva, 2014, 26(1):51-56.
