Efficacy of positive airway pressure therapy and high flow nasal cannula oxygen in acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is currently the first-line respiratory support technique for acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), but the accompanied adverse events and patient's intolerance with treatment in some cases limited its use in clinical practice. Some recent trials indicated that high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO) is a promising alternative to PAP therapy. In order to choose the optimum treatment for patients with ACPE, this network meta-analysis will firstly compares the efficacy of HFNO, PAP, and conventional oxygen therapy (COT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 statement and its extension for network meta-analysis will be followed in the conduct of this investigation. We will examine these databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. The ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal will be used to search ongoing trials. Only randomized controlled trials meeting the eligibility criteria will be included. Through the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, the included studies' risk of bias will be assessed. The pairwise meta-analysis will be performed with RevMan 5.4.1 software. A Bayesian network meta-analysis will use random-effects models to derive odds ratios for the treatment effects of all interventions compared to each other using R software (version 3.6.1), and the rjags and gemtc packages. The Q statistic and I(2) index will be used for investigating the heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis will be used to explore the source of heterogeneity. In addition, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used to inspect the quality of evidence.