Cargando…

Prophylactic noninvasive respiratory support in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery - a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support has been increasingly applied in the immediate postoperative period to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). However, the optimal approach remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various noninvasive respira...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Xiaoyang, Pan, Jianneng, Wang, Hua, Xu, Zhaojun, Zhao, Long, Chen, Bixin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10303297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37380968
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02525-1
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support has been increasingly applied in the immediate postoperative period to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). However, the optimal approach remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various noninvasive respiratory strategies used in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a frequentist random-effect network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the prophylactic use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), or postoperative usual care (PUC) in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery. Databases were systematically searched through September 28, 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs enrolling 3011 patients were included. Compared with PUC, NIV significantly reduced the incidence of PPCs [relative risk (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 7.6%, 95% CI: 1.6–11.8%; low certainty] and the incidence of atelectasis (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.93; ARR 19.3%, 95% CI: 3.9–30.4%; moderate certainty); however, prophylactic NIV was not associated with a decreased reintubation rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.34; low certainty) or reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.16 to 2.52; very low certainty). As compared to PUC, the preventive use of CPAP (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.20; very low certainty) or HFNC (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.20; low certainty) had no significant beneficial effect on the incidence of PPCs, despite exhibiting a downward trend. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the highest-ranked treatment for reducing the incidence of PPCs was NIV (83.0%), followed by HFNC (62.5%), CPAP (44.3%), and PUC (10.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggest that the prophylactic use of NIV in the immediate postoperative period is probably the most effective noninvasive respiratory approach to prevent PPCs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Given the overall low certainty of the evidence, further high-quality research is warranted to better understand the relative benefits of each noninvasive ventilatory support. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, registry number: CRD42022303904. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-023-02525-1.