Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) vs. Non Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIV) in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema (ACPE): A Prospective Randomized Multicentric Study

Bilevel positive airway pressure ventilation for non-COPD acute hypercapnic respiratory failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effectiveness of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to etiologies other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. To systematically review the evidence regarding the effectiveness of BiPAP in non-COPD patients with AHRF. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus were searched according to prespecified criteria (PROSPERO-CRD42018089875). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of BiPAP versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), invasive mechanical ventilation, or O₂ therapy in adults with non-COPD AHRF were included. The primary outcomes of interest were the rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and mortality. Risk-of-bias assessment was performed, and data were synthesized and meta-analyzed where appropriate. Two thousand four hundred and eighty-five records were identified after removing duplicates. Eighty-eight articles were identified for full-text assessment, of which 82 articles were excluded. Six studies, of generally low or uncertain risk-of-bias, were included involving 320 participants with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPO) and solid tumors. No significant differences were seen between BiPAP ventilation and CPAP with regard to the rate of progression to ETI (risk ratio [RR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-3.62, P = 0.37) and in-hospital mortality rate (RR = 0.71, 95% CI, 0.25-1.99, P = 0.51) in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. The efficacy of BiPAP appears similar to CPAP in reducing the rates of ETI and mortality in patients with AHRF due to ACPO. Further research on other non-COPD conditions which commonly cause AHRF such as obesity hypoventilation syndrome is needed.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I² = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I² = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a systematic review previously published in 2008 about non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). NPPV has been widely used to alleviate signs and symptoms of respiratory distress due to cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. NPPV prevents alveolar collapse and helps redistribute intra-alveolar fluid, improving pulmonary compliance and reducing the pressure of breathing.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of NPPV in the treatment of adult patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema in its acute stage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 20 April 2011: CENTRAL and DARE, (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 of 4, 2011); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1950 to April 2011); EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to April 2011); CINAHL (1982 to April 2011); and LILACS (1982 to April 2011). We also reviewed reference lists of included studies and contacted experts and equipment manufacturers. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected blinded or unblinded randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials, reporting on adult patients with acute or acute-on-chronic cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and where NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care was compared with standard medical care alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected articles and abstracted data using a standardised data collection form. We evaluated study quality with emphasis on allocation concealment, sequence generation allocation, losses to follow-up, outcome assessors, selective outcome reporting and adherence to the intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (2916 participants), of generally low or uncertain risk of bias. Compared with standard medical care, NPPV significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89) and endotracheal intubation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75). We found no difference in hospital length of stay with NPPV; however, intensive care unit stay was reduced by 1 day (WMD -0.89 days, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.45). Compared with standard medical care, we did not observe significant increases in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction with NPPV during its application (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.95) or after (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.26). We identified fewer adverse events with NPPV use (in particular progressive respiratory distress and neurological failure (coma)) when compared with standard medical care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NPPV in addition to standard medical care is an effective and safe intervention for the treatment of adult patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The evidence to date on the potential benefit of NPPV in reducing mortality is entirely derived from small-trials and further large-scale trials are needed.