Cargando…

Continuous positive airway pressure for children in resource-limited settings, effect on mortality and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: Determine non-invasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outcomes for paediatric respiratory distress in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: LMIC hospitals. PATIENTS: One month to 15 year olds with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sessions, Kristen L, Smith, Andrew G, Holmberg, Peter J, Wahl, Brian, Mvalo, Tisungane, Chisti, Mohammod J, Carroll, Ryan W, McCollum, Eric D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9125374/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34880003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-323041
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Determine non-invasive ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outcomes for paediatric respiratory distress in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: LMIC hospitals. PATIENTS: One month to 15 year olds with respiratory distress. INTERVENTIONS: We searched Medline, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science and Scopus on 7 April 2020. Included studies assessed CPAP safety, efficacy or effectiveness. All study types were included; neonatal only studies were excluded. Data were extracted by two reviewers and bias was assessed. Certainty of evidence was evaluated, and risk ratios (RR) were produced for meta-analyses. (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018084278). RESULTS: 2174 papers were screened, 20 were included in the systematic review and 3 were included in two separate meta-analyses of mortality and adverse events. Studies suitable for meta-analysis were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Bangladesh, Ghana and Malawi. For meta-analyses comparing death or adverse events between CPAP and low-flow oxygen recipients, we found no clear CPAP effect on mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.72) or adverse events (RR 1.52, CI 0.71 to 3.26). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for both death and adverse events outcomes to ‘low’ due to design issues and results discrepancies across RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for CPAP efficacy against mortality and adverse events has low certainty and is context dependent. Hospitals introducing CPAP need to have mechanisms in place to optimise safety in the context it is being used; this includes the location (a high dependency or intensive care area), adequate numbers of staff trained in CPAP use, close monitoring and mechanisms for escalation, daily direct physician supervision, equipment that is age appropriate and user-friendly and continuous monitoring of outcomes and quality of care.