Efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in neonates: a Meta analysis.
- Author:
Xi LIN
1
;
Peng JIA
;
Xiao-Qin LI
;
Qin LIU
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatrics, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan 646000, China. liuqin18@126.com.
- Publication Type:Meta-Analysis
- MeSH:
Cannula;
China;
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure;
Humans;
Infant, Newborn;
Infant, Premature;
Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn/therapy*
- From:
Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics
2020;22(11):1164-1171
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
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.
