The use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Guidelines from different regions on the use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 have generally been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and availability of guidelines, and whether non-invasive ventilation in the early stages of the pandemic is of importance.Design and method
Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations and gray literature, were searched up to June 23, 2020. The reference lists of eligible papers were also hand-searched.Results
A total of 26 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the guidelines' methodological quality was low. Among six domains, Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence were of the lowest quality. Given the lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials and the great variation between different regions, recommendations for non-invasive ventilation have generated considerable debate regarding the early stages of COVID-19.Conclusions
Improving the methodological quality of the guidelines should be a goal with regard to future pandemics. Additionally, better-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve contradictions regarding the impact of non-invasive ventilation.Prospero registration number
CRD42020198410.
SUBMITTER: Wang Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008782 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeLimited mechanical ventilators (MV) during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hypoxemic patients, which has not been studied well. We aimed to assess the association of NIV versus MV with mortality and morbidity during respiratory intervention among hypoxemic patients admitted with COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study across 5 hospitals during March-April 2020. Outcomes included mortality, severe COVID-19-related symptoms, time to discharge, and final oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the conclusion of the respiratory intervention. Multivariable regression of outcomes was conducted in all hypoxemic participants, 4 subgroups, and propensity-matched analysis.ResultsOf 2381 participants with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, 688 were included in the study who were hypoxemic upon initiation of respiratory intervention. During the study period, 299 participants died (43%), 163 were admitted to the ICU (24%), and 121 experienced severe COVID-19-related symptoms (18%). Participants on MV had increased mortality than those on NIV (128/154 [83%] versus 171/534 [32%], OR = 30, 95% CI 16-60) with a mean survival of 6 versus 15 days, respectively. The MV group experienced more severe COVID-19-related symptoms [55/154 (36%) versus 66/534 (12%), OR = 4.3, 95% CI 2.7-6.8], longer time to discharge (mean 17 versus 7.1 days), and lower final SpO2 (92 versus 94%). Across all subgroups and propensity-matched analysis, MV was associated with a greater OR of death than NIV.ConclusionsNIV was associated with lower respiratory intervention mortality and morbidity than MV. However, findings may be liable to unmeasured confounding and further study from randomized controlled trials is needed to definitively determine the role of NIV in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8179090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUncertainty remains around the benefit of home non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and those with a recent exacerbation (post-hospital). The aim of this systematic review was to: (1) update the evidence base with studies published in any language, including Chinese language studies not indexed in standard medical databases, and (2) explore the impact of additional studies on the evidence base.MethodsStandard systematic review methodology was used for identifying and appraising studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies reporting mortality, hospitalizations, exacerbations, quality of life, adverse events, or adherence were included. Random effects meta-analysis was undertaken for mortality and hospitalizations, with studies sub-grouped by population and study design. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the effect of including studies from Western and non-Western countries.ResultsA total of 103 studies were included, substantially more than in previous reviews. There was no significant effect on mortality for the stable population. There was a benefit from NIV for the post-hospital population based on non-randomized studies, or RCTs from non-Western countries. There was a small but significant reduction in hospital admissions (1-2/year) with NIV across all sub-groups, and a variable reduction in duration of stay with greater reductions in studies from China.ConclusionsThe evidence base on home NIV is considerably larger than previously presented. While NIV may reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life, there is still little evidence of a reduction in mortality, regardless of country. Individual participant data analysis may clarify which patients would benefit most from NIV.
| S-EPMC9166324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?'MethodsWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) - 1.34, 95% HDI - 1.92 to - 0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD - 0.70, 95% HDI - 0.94 to - 0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life.ConclusionsThe use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.
| S-EPMC6280833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextChildren with Down syndrome are at risk for obstructive sleep apnea, which may not be resolved by adenotonsillecotmy, as well as other respiratory disorders that may impact breathing during sleep. Long-term non-invasive ventilation, including continuous and bilevel positive airway pressure delivery, is an alternate treatment strategy.ObjectiveTo assess the use and outcomes of long-term non-invasive ventilation in children with Down syndrome including comparison to other children using long-term non-invasive ventilation.Data sourcesThe search strategy for the scoping review used Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms for "child" and "non-invasive ventilation." MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Cochrane Library (Wiley), and PubMed databases were searched (1990-2021).Study selectionThe scoping review results were searched to identify studies including data on at least three children with Down Syndrome using long-term non-invasive ventilation.Data extractionStudy characteristics, subject characteristics, technology type, and outcome measurements were extracted.ResultsA total of 28 articles included 543 children with Down syndrome using long-term non-invasive ventilation. Children with Down syndrome accounted for 18% of children using long-term non-invasive ventilation. Data on efficacy, feasibility, and adherence in children with Down syndrome are comparable to other children. Children with Down syndrome may have greater difficulty initiating long-term non-invasive ventilation, longer time to establish use, and a higher rate of inability to establish use. Outcome data is limited but suggest favorable impact on cardiac function and attention.LimitationsArticles related to long-term non-invasive ventilation use in adolescents and young adults may have been excluded.ConclusionsChildren with Down syndrome make up a significant portion of the population of children using long-term non-invasive ventilation. While there is more limited data available with respect to the use and outcomes for children with Down syndrome compared to the other children, long-term non-invasive ventilation is an effective and well-tolerated therapy with no clear differences in the use or outcomes for children with Down syndrome. Additional work is needed to understand potential challenges around establishing long-term non-invasive ventilation use in children with Down syndrome.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=206533, identifier: CRD206533.
| S-EPMC9168004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Goal: COSMIC Medical, a Vancouver-based open-source volunteer initiative, has designed an accessible, affordable, and aerosol-confining non-invasive positive-pressure ventilator (NIPPV) device, known as the COSMIC Bubble Helmet (CBH). This device is intended for COVID-19 patients with mild-to-moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome. System Design: CBH is composed of thermoplastic polyurethane, which creates a flexible neck seal and transparent hood. This device can be connected to wall oxygen, NIPPVs including Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure, and mechanical ventilators. Discussion: Justification of CBH design components relied on several factors, predominantly the safety and comfort of patients and healthcare providers. Conclusion: CBH has implications within and outside of the pandemic, as an alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation methods. We have experimentally verified that CBH is effective in minimizing aerosolization risks and performs at specified clinical requirements.
| S-EPMC8545034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUNDThis systematic review aimed to assess inhaled drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients or in animal models. Whole lung and regional deposition and the impact of the ventilator circuit, the artificial airways and the administration technique for aerosol delivery were analyzed.METHODSIn vivo studies assessing lung deposition during invasive mechanical ventilation were selected based on a systematic search among four databases. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility and the risk of bias.RESULTSTwenty-six clinical and ten experimental studies were included. Between 30% and 43% of nominal drug dose was lost to the circuit in ventilated patients. Whole lung deposition of up to 16% and 38% of nominal dose (proportion of drug charged in the device) were reported with nebulizers and metered-dose inhalers, respectively. A penetration index inferior to 1 observed in scintigraphic studies indicated major proximal deposition. However, substantial concentrations of antibiotics were measured in the epithelial lining fluid (887 (406-12,819) ?g/mL of amikacin) of infected patients and in sub-pleural specimens (e.g., 197 ?g/g of amikacin) dissected from infected piglets, suggesting a significant distal deposition. The administration technique varied among studies and may explain a degree of the variability of deposition that was observed.CONCLUSIONSLung deposition was lower than 20% of nominal dose delivered with nebulizers and mostly occurred in proximal airways. Further studies are needed to link substantial concentrations of antibiotics in infected pulmonary fluids to pulmonary deposition. The administration technique with nebulizers should be improved in ventilated patients in order to ensure an efficient but safe, feasible and reproducible technique.
| S-EPMC5651640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNon-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered by helmet has been used for respiratory support of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to compare helmet NIV with usual care versus usual care alone to reduce mortality.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel randomised controlled trial that compares helmet NIV with usual care to usual care alone in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 320 patients will be enrolled in this study. The primary outcome is 28-day all-cause mortality. The primary outcome will be compared between the two study groups in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol cohorts. An interim analysis will be conducted for both safety and effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationApprovals are obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and meetings.Trial registration numberNCT04477668.
| S-EPMC8392742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection remains controversial. Current literature mainly examined efficacy, safety and potential predictors of NIV failure provided out of the intensive care unit (ICU). On the contrary, the outcomes of ICU patients, intubated after NIV failure, remain to be explored. The aims of the present study are: (1) investigating in-hospital mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ICU patients receiving endotracheal intubation after NIV failure and (2) assessing whether the length of NIV application affects patient survival. This observational multicenter study included all consecutive COVID-19 adult patients, admitted into the twenty-five ICUs of the COVID-19 VENETO ICU network (February-April 2020), who underwent endotracheal intubation after NIV failure. Among the 704 patients admitted to ICU during the study period, 280 (40%) presented the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The median age was 69 [60-76] years; 219 patients (78%) were male. In-hospital mortality was 43%. Only the length of NIV application before ICU admission (OR 2.03 (95% CI 1.06-4.98), p = 0.03) and age (OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.04-1.33), p < 0.01) were identified as independent risk factors of in-hospital mortality; whilst the length of NIV after ICU admission did not affect patient outcome. In-hospital mortality of ICU patients intubated after NIV failure was 43%. Days on NIV before ICU admission and age were assessed to be potential risk factors of greater in-hospital mortality.
| S-EPMC8421335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Critically ill patients admitted to hospital following SARS-CoV-2 infection often experience hypoxic respiratory failure and a proportion require invasive mechanical ventilation to maintain adequate oxygenation. The combination of prone positioning and non-invasive ventilation in conscious patients may have a role in improving oxygenation. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of prone positioning in spontaneously ventilating patients receiving non-invasive ventilation admitted to the intensive care. Clinical data of 81 patients admitted with COVID 19 pneumonia and acute hypoxic respiratory failure were retrieved from electronic medical records and examined. Patients who had received prone positioning in combination with non-invasive ventilation were identified. A total of 20 patients received prone positioning in conjunction with non-invasive ventilation. This resulted in improved oxygenation as measured by a change in PaO 2/FiO 2 (P/F) ratio of 28.7 mmHg while prone, without significant change in heart rate or respiratory rate. Patients on average underwent 5 cycles with a median duration of 3 hours. There were no reported deaths, 7 of the 20 patients (35%) failed non-invasive ventilation and subsequently required intubation and mechanical ventilation. In our cohort of 20 COVID-19 patients with moderate acute hypoxic respiratory failure, prone positioning with non-invasive ventilation resulted in improved oxygenation. Prone positioning with non-invasive ventilation may be considered as an early therapeutic intervention in COVID-19 patients with moderate acute hypoxic respiratory failure.
| S-EPMC7578762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety profiles of prone ventilation among intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remain unclear. The primary objective was to examine the effect of prone ventilation on the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) in intubated COVID-19 patients.MethodsDatabases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception until March 2021. Case reports and case series were excluded.ResultsEleven studies (n = 606 patients) were eligible. Prone ventilation significantly improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio (studies: 8, n = 579, mean difference 46.75, 95% CI 33.35‒60.15, p < 0.00001; evidence: very low) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (studies: 3, n = 432, mean difference 1.67, 95% CI 1.08‒2.26, p < 0.00001; evidence: ow), but not the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) (studies: 5, n = 396, mean difference 2.45, 95% CI 2.39‒7.30, p = 0.32; evidence: very low), mortality rate (studies: 1, n = 215, Odds Ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32‒1.33, p = 0.24; evidence: very low), or number of patients discharged alive (studies: 1, n = 43, Odds Ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.72‒3.08, p = 0.28; evidence: very low).ConclusionProne ventilation improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SpO2 in intubated COVID-19 patients. Given the substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, more randomized- controlled trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence, and to examine the adverse events of prone ventilation.
| S-EPMC9259191 | biostudies-literature