PDF(1464 KB)
高流量鼻导管吸氧对比经鼻持续气道正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征疗效的Meta分析
林茜, 贾鹏, 李晓琴, 刘勤
中国当代儿科杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (11) : 1164-1171.
PDF(1464 KB)
PDF(1464 KB)
高流量鼻导管吸氧对比经鼻持续气道正压通气治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征疗效的Meta分析
Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis
目的 系统评价高流量鼻导管吸氧（HFNC）对比经鼻持续气道正压通气（nCPAP）治疗新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征（RDS）的有效性和安全性。方法 计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、中国知网和维普数据库建库至2020年4月1日的文献，收集HFNC对比nCPAP运用于新生儿RDS的随机对照试验（RCT）。采用RevMan5.3软件对符合纳入标准的临床研究进行Meta分析。结果 共纳入12篇RCT文献，包括2 861例新生儿，其中胎龄≥28周2 698例（94.30%）， < 28周163例（5.70%）。在初始呼吸支持中，HFNC组治疗失败率高于nCPAP组（RR=1.86，95% CI：1.53~2.25，P < 0.001）；两组有创机械通气率（P=0.40）、肺表面活性物质使用率（P=0.77）的比较差异无统计学意义。在拔管后呼吸支持中，两组治疗失败率、重新插管率、总用氧时间的比较差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。在初始呼吸支持和拔管后呼吸支持中，HFNC组的鼻损伤发生率均明显低于nCPAP组（P < 0.001）；HFNC组和nCPAP组病死率及气漏综合征、支气管肺发育不良、坏死性小肠结肠炎等并发症的发生率的比较差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。结论 基于现有临床证据，HFNC作为新生儿RDS初始治疗时失败率高于nCPAP，不建议在新生儿RDS初始治疗时使用；在胎龄≥28周RDS新生儿撤机阶段可以考虑使用HFNC作为拔管后辅助呼吸支持。
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in neonates. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang Database, CNKI, and Weipu Database were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HFNC versus nCPAP in the treatment of neonatal RDS published up to April 1, 2020. RevMan5.3 software was used to perform a Meta analysis of the eligible RCTs. Results A total of 12 RCTs were included, with 2 861 neonates in total, among whom 2 698 neonates (94.30%) had a gestational age of ≥ 28 weeks and 163 (5.70%) had a gestational age of < 28 weeks. For primary respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly higher rate of treatment failure than the nCPAP group (RR=1.86, 95% CI:1.53-2.25, P < 0.001), but there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation (P=0.40) and the rate of use of pulmonary surfactant (P=0.77). For post-extubation respiratory support, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the treatment failure rate, reintubation rate, and total oxygen supply time (P > 0.05). For primary respiratory support and post-extubation respiratory support, the HFNC group had a significantly lower incidence rate of nasal injury than the nCPAP group (P < 0.001), and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the mortality rate and incidence rates of the complications such as air leak syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and necrotizing enterocolitis (P > 0.05). Conclusions Based on the current clinical evidence, HFNC has a higher failure rate than nCPAP when used as primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS, and therefore it is not recommended to use HFNC as the primary respiratory support for neonates with RDS. In RDS neonates with a gestational age of ≥ 28 weeks, HFNC can be used as post-extubation respiratory support in the weaning phase.
呼吸窘迫综合征 / 高流量鼻导管吸氧 / 经鼻持续气道正压通气 / Meta分析 / 新生儿
Respiratory distress syndrome / High-flow nasal cannula / Nasal continuous positive airway pressure / Meta analysis / Neonate
[1] 中国医师协会新生儿科医师分会. 早产儿呼吸窘迫综合征早期防治专家共识[J]. 中华实用儿科临床杂志, 2018, 33(6):438-440.
[2] 曾健生, 钱素云. 促进儿童无创正压通气的临床应用[J]. 中华儿科杂志, 2017, 55(5):321-323.
[3] Nielsen KR, Ellington LE, Gray AJ, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal cannula on expiratory pressure and ventilation in infant, pediatric, and adult models[J]. Respir Care, 2018, 63(2):147-157.
[4] 罗俊, 徐芬, 詹媛丽, 等. 加温湿化高流量鼻塞通气初始治疗轻-中度新生儿呼吸窘迫综合征的有效性:meta分析[J]. 中华围产医学杂志, 2017, 20(11):818-823.
[5] Zivanovic S, Scrivens A, Panza R, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy as primary respiratory support for preterm infants without the need for rescue with nasal continuous positive airway pressure[J]. Neonatology, 2019, 115(2):175-181.
[6] Hegde S, Prodhan P. Serious air leak syndrome complicating high-flow nasal cannula therapy:a report of 3 cases[J]. Pediatrics, 2013, 131(3):e939-e944.
[7] Kang BJ, Koh Y, Lim CM, et al. Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2015, 41(4):623-632.
[8] Yoder BA, Manley B, Collins C, et al. Consensus approach to nasal high-flow therapy in neonates[J]. J Perinatol, 2017, 37(7):809-813.
[9] Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1.0)[EB/OL]. (2011-03-20)[2020-04-10]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
[10] Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials:is blinding necessary?[J]. Control Clin Trials, 1996, 17(1):1-12.
[11] Armanian AM, Iranpour R, Parvaneh M, et al. Heated humidified high flow nasal cannula (HHHFNC) is not an effective method for initial treatment of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) versus nasal intermittent mandatory ventilation (NIMV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP)[J]. J Res Med Sci, 2019, 24:73.
[12] Farhat AS, Mohammadzadeh A, Mamuri GA, et al. Comparison of nasal non-invasive ventilation methods in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome[J]. Iran J Neonatol, 2018, 9(4):53-60.
[13] Glackin SJ, O'Sullivan A, George S, et al. High flow nasal cannula versus NCPAP, duration to full oral feeds in preterm infants:a randomised controlled trial[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2017, 102(4):F329-F332.
[14] Kadivar M, Mosayebi Z, Razi N, et al. High flow nasal cannulae versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome managed with INSURE method:a randomized clinical trial[J]. Iran J Med Sci, 2016, 41(6):494-500.
[15] Lavizzari A, Colnaghi M, Ciuffini F, et al. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula vs nasal continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress syndrome of prematurity:a randomized clinical noninferiority trial[J]. JAMA Pediatr, 2016:E1-E7.
[16] Manley BJ, Arnolda GRB, Wright IMR, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy for newborn infants in special care nurseries[J]. N Engl J Med, 2019, 380(21):2031-2040.
[17] Murki S, Singh J, Khant C, et al. High-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure for primary respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress:a randomized controlled trial[J]. Neonatology, 2018, 113(3):235-241.
[18] Roberts CT, Owen LS, Manley BJ, et al. Nasal high-flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants[J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 375(12):1142-1151.
[19] Shin J, Park K, Lee EH, et al. Humidified high flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure as an initial respiratory support in preterm infants with respiratory distress:a randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2017, 32(4):650-655.
[20] Shokouhi M, Basiri B, Sabzehei MK, et al. Efficacy and complications of humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome after surfactant therapy[J]. Iran Red Crescent Med J, 2019, 21(2):e83615.
[21] Soonsawad S, Tongsawang N, Nuntnarumit P. Heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula for weaning from continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants:a randomized controlled trial[J]. Neonatology, 2016, 110(3):204-209.
[22] Yoder BA, Stoddard RA, Li M, et al. Heated, humidified high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal CPAP for respiratory support in neonates[J]. Pediatrics, 2013, 131(5):e1482-e1490.
[23] Manley BJ, Owen LS. High-flow nasal cannula:mechanisms, evidence and recommendations[J]. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med, 2016, 21(3):139-145.
[24] Sweet DG, Carnielli V, Greisen G, et al. European consensus guidelines on the management of respiratory distress syndrome-2019 update[J]. Neonatology, 2019, 115(4):432-450.
[25] Morris JV, Kapetanstrataki M, Parslow RC, et al. Patterns of use of heated humidified high-flow nasal cannula therapy in PICUs in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland[J]. Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2019, 20(3):223-232.
[26] Conte F, Orfeo L, Gizzi C, et al. Rapid systematic review shows that using a high-flow nasal cannula is inferior to nasal continuous positive airway pressure as first-line support in preterm neonates[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2018, 107(10):1684-1696.
[27] Liew Z, Fenton AC, Harigopal S, et al. Physiological effects of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in preterm infants[J]. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed, 2020, 105(1):87-93.
[28] Frizzola M, Miller TL, Rodriguez ME, et al. High-flow nasal cannula:impact on oxygenation and ventilation in an acute lung injury model[J]. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2011, 46(1):67-74.
[29] Mazmanyan P, Darakchyan M, Pinkham MI, et al. Mechanisms of nasal high flow therapy in newborns[J]. J Appl Physiol (1985), 2020, 128(4):822-829.
[30] 李文星, 唐军, 陈超, 等. 预防早产儿拔管失败:加温湿化高流量鼻导管通气与经鼻持续气道正压通气效果比较的Meta分析[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(2):171-179.
