High-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure in primary respiratory support for preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

14Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Respiratory support is crucial for the survival of preterm infants, and High-flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (HFNC) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) are commonly used for neonatal respiratory support. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of HFNC and CPAP in primary respiratory support for preterm infants, to provide evidence-based support for clinical practice. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, VIP, WANFANG and SinoMed were searched for eligible studies. The primary outcomes included the incidence of treatment failure and the application of mechanical ventilation. A total of 27 eligible studies with 3,351 participants were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of respiratory support failure [RR = 1.17, 95%CI (0.88–1.56)] and the application of mechanical ventilation [RR = 1.00, 95%CI (0.84–1.19)] between HFNC group and CPAP group. HFNC resulted in lower rate of air leaks [RR = 0.65, 95%CI (0.46–0.92)], nasal trauma [RR = 0.36, 95%CI (0.29–0.45)] and abdominal distension [RR = 0.39, 95%CI (0.27–0.58)], and later time of mechanical ventilation initiating [SMD = 0.60, 95%CI (0.21–0.99)], less duration of oxygen therapy [SMD = −0.35, 95%CI (−0.68 to −0.02)] and earlier enteral feeding [SMD = −0.54, 95%CI (−0.95 to −0.13)]. Alternative non-invasive respiratory support after initial treatment failure resulted in no difference in the application of mechanical ventilation between the two groups [RR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.52–1.88)]. HFNC might be more effective and safer in primary respiratory support for preterm infants. Using CPAP as a remedy for the treatment failure of HFNC could not avoid intubation. For premature infants with the gestational age <28 weeks, HFNC as primary respiratory support still needs to be further elucidated. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022313479, identifier: CRD42022313479.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations

5315Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Research in high flow therapy: Mechanisms of action

584Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome - 2016 Update

416Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Respiratory Management of the Preterm Infant: Supporting Evidence-Based Practice at the Bedside

20Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effect of Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure vs Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula on Feeding Intolerance in Preterm Infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The ENTARES Randomized Clinical Trial

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Blinding Assessments in Neonatal Ventilation Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Meta-Epidemiological Review

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Luo, K., Huang, Y., Xiong, T., & Tang, J. (2022, November 21). High-flow nasal cannula versus continuous positive airway pressure in primary respiratory support for preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Pediatrics. Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.980024

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 6

75%

Researcher 2

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 9

90%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

10%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free