Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of continuous positive airways pressure versus high flow oxygen cannula in acute bronchiolitis
Abstract
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and COCHRANE Central, and gray literature in clinical trials databases ( www.
Clinicaltrials: gov ), from inception to June 2022. The inclusion criteria for the literature were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that included children < 2 years old, with acute moderate or severe bronchiolitis. All study selection and data extractions are performed independently by two reviewers.
Results: The initial searches including 106 records. Only five randomized controlled trial that met the inclusion criteria were included in meta-analysis. The risk of invasive mechanical ventilation was not significantly different in CPAP group and HFNC group [OR: 1.18, 95% CI (0.74, 1.89), I² = 0%] (very low quality). The risk of treatment failure was less significantly in CPAP group than HFNC group [OR: 0.51, 95% CI (0.36, 0.75), I² = 0%] (very low quality).
Conclusion: In conclusion, there was no significant difference between HFNC and CPAP in terms of risk of invasive mechanical ventilation. CPAP reduces de risk of therapeutic failure with a highest risk of non severe adverse events. More trials are needed to confirm theses results.
Keywords: Bronchiolitis; Children; Continuous positive air pressure; Continuous positive airways pressure; High flow oxygen cannula; High-flow nasal cannula; Severe bronchiolitis.