Turkish Archives of Pediatrics
Review

Comparison Between Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and High-Flow Nasal Cannula as Postextubation Respiratory Support in Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

1.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

2.

Department of Pediatrics, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

3.

Department of Neonatology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

Turk Arch Pediatr 2022; 57: 581-590
DOI: 10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2022.22161
Read: 177 Downloads: 57 Published: 01 November 2022

Objective: The interest in noninvasive respiratory support has been increasing, including continuous positive airway pressure and recent respiratory methods, namely high-flow nasal cannula. It is discussed if high-flow nasal cannula can reduce continuous positive airway pressure or invasive ventilation use. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal cannula as postextubation respiratory support in neonates.

Materials and Methods: A literature search, based on Preferred Reporting of Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted across MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science in 15 years (2006-2021) assessing randomized controlled trials that compared continuous positive airway pressure with high-flow nasal cannula as postextubation interventions in neonates. The primary outcome was extubation failure at 72 hours and/or at 7 days and the secondary outcomes included air leak syndrome, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, nasal trauma, abdominal distension, and mortality.

Results: Seven studies were included, comprising 1044 neonates. No statistically significant differences were found between high-flow nasal cannula and continuous positive airway pressure in extubation failure (at 72 hours and 7 days), air leak syndrome, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, abdominal distension, and mortality. High-flow nasal cannula was associated with a lower incidence of nasal trauma (odds ratio = 0.21; 95% CI 0.08-0.52; P = .0008). Studies assessing extreme premature infants (<28 weeks) raised some efficacy and safety concerns.

Conclusion: High-flow nasal cannula may be as effective and safe as continuous positive airway pressure, with similar extubation failure and risk of air leak syndrome, pneumothorax, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, abdominal distension, and mortality with the advantage of less nasal trauma. High-flow nasal cannula should be considered as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure in postextubation settings in neonates. Further studies are needed to establish efficacy and safety in lower gestational ages.

Cite this article as: Martins C, Pissarra R, Costa S, Soares H, Guimarães H. Comparison between continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal cannula as postextubation respiratory support in neonates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Turk Arch Pediatr. 2022;57(6):581-590.

Files
EISSN 2757-6256