Use of NHFOV vs. NIPPV for the respiratory support of preterm newborns after extubation: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Read online

ObjectivesThis meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) and nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for preterm newborns after extubation.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases from inception to August 28, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of NHFOV and NIPPV in newborns were included in the review and meta-analysis, which followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines.ResultsEight studies involving 1,603 patients were included. Compared with NIPPV, NHFOV could reduce the reintubation rates (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53, 0.86, P = 0.002). Subgroup analysis showed that the significant difference was found in reintubation rates within 72 h (RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.32, 0.73, P = 0.0005). NHFOV also could decrease the duration of non-invasive ventilation (standard mean difference (SMD) = −1.52, 95% CI −2.58, −0.45, P = 0.005). However, all included studies had a high risk of bias, and the overall quality of the evidence of the outcomes was low or very low.ConclusionIn our study, compared with NIPPV, NHFOV seems to reduce the reintubation rates without increasing adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, definite recommendations cannot be made based on the quality of the published evidence.

Keywords

• noninvasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation
• nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation
• preterm infants
• respiratory support
• meta-analysis