首页> 外文期刊>BMC Pulmonary Medicine >Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:免疫功能低下急性呼吸衰竭患者的无创与有创机械通气:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Background To determine the effects of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) compared with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) as the initial mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes when used for treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in immunocompromised patients. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and other databases. Subgroup analyses by disease severity and causes of immunodeficiency were also conducted. Results Thirteen observational studies with a total of 2552 patients were included. Compared to IMV, NIV was shown to significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.80, P value?=?0.007) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.20 to 0.61, P value?Conclusions The overall evidence we obtained shows NIV does more benefits or at least no harm to ARF patients with certain causes of immunodeficiency or who are less severe.
机译:背景技术为了确定无创机械通气(NIV)与有创机械通气(IMV)作为初始机械通气相比,在治疗免疫功能低下患者的急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)时对临床结局的影响。方法我们检索了PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane对照试验中央注册系统(CENTRAL),中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和其他数据库。还按疾病严重程度和免疫缺陷原因进行了亚组分析。结果共纳入13项观察性研究,共2552名患者。与IMV相比,NIV被证明可显着降低住院死亡率(OR 0.43,95%CI 0.23至0.80,P值= 0.007)和30天死亡率(OR 0.34,95%CI 0.20至0.61,P值结论我们获得的总体证据表明,NIV对具有某些免疫缺陷原因或病情较轻的ARF患者有更多益处或至少没有伤害。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号