Noninvasive high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for preterm infants as an extubation support: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Kaixu Wang, Xiaofeng Zhou, Shuqiang Gao, Fang Li, Rong Ju
Abstract
Abstract Objective We aimed to explore whether noninvasive high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) could reduce the incidence of reintubation compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in the postextubation phase of preterm infants. Methods Randomized controlled trials of NHFOV versus NIPPV were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and MEDLINE. Meta‐analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results Four randomized controlled trials including 1138 preterm infants were included in this study. Compared with NIPPV, NHFOV reduced the incidence of reintubation in the post‐extubation phase of preterm infants ( p = 0.01, RR = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56∼0.94), and no heterogeneity was found in the four studies ( p = 0.55, I 2 = 0%). In the sensitivity analysis, the result showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of reintubation between NHFOV and NIPPV after excluding one study ( p = 0. 05, RR = 0.76 95% CI: 0.58∼1.00), and no heterogeneity was found in the other three studies ( p = 0.95, I 2 = 0%). There was no statistical difference between NHFOV and NIPPV in BPD, air leak, IVH (≥Grade III) and mortality. Conclusion Among mechanically ventilated preterm infants, compared with NIPPV, NHFOV was potentially beneficial to reduce the incidence of reintubation after extubation and did not increase the risk of complications.