Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs. High Flow Nasal Cannula in children with acute severe or moderate bronchiolitis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) vs. High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) to prevent therapeutic failure and the need of invasive ventilation in children with acute moderate-severe bronchiolitis. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Medline, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane and gray literature (May 2020) was performed. PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trials patients with moderate to severe bronchiolitis. MAIN VARIABLES: Therapeutic failure, need for invasive ventilation, adverse events, length of PCCU and of hospital stay. INTERVENTION: The quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk and bias tool. We conducted meta-analysis using fixed effect model and random effects model. RESULTS: Three RCTs were included. Showed less risk of therapeutic failure with CPAP compared with HFNC (RR=0.7; 95%CI 0.5-0.99) developed hours later in patients with CPAP (MD=3.16; 95%CI 1.55-4.77). We did not find differences in other outcomes, such as need of invasive ventilation (RR=0.60; 95%CI 0.25-1.43), apnea (RR=0.40; 95%CI 0.08-1.99), or number of days in the intensive care unit (MD=0.02; 95%CI -0.38 to 0.42), and length of hospitalization (MD=-1.00; 95%IC -2.66 to 0.66). Adverse events (skin lesions) were more common with CPAP (RR 2.47; 95%CI 1.17-5.22). CONCLUSIONS: In moderate/severe bronchiolitis CPAP demonstrated a lower risk of therapeutic failure and a longer time to failure. But more adverse events like nasal injury. There were no differences in other variables.
