4.3 Review

Efficacy and safety of CPAP in low- and middle-income countries

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 S21-S28

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jp.2016.29

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Development (MCA), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the (1) feasibility and efficacy and (2) safety and cost effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE and WHOLIS-up to December 2014 and included all studies that enrolled neonates requiring CPAP therapy for any indication. We did not find any randomized trials from LMICs that have evaluated the efficacy of CPAP therapy. Pooled analysis of four observational studies showed 66% reduction in in-hospital mortality following CPAP in preterm neonates (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.82). One study reported 50% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation following the introduction of bubble CPAP (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.66). The proportion of neonates who failed CPAP and required mechanical ventilation varied from 20 to 40% (eight studies). The incidence of air leaks varied from 0 to 7.2% (nine studies). One study reported a significant reduction in the cost of surfactant usage with the introduction of CPAP. Available evidence suggests that CPAP is a safe and effective mode of therapy in preterm neonates with respiratory distress in LMICs. It reduces the in-hospital mortality and the need for ventilation thereby minimizing the need for up-transfer to a referral hospital. But given the overall paucity of studies and the low quality evidence underscores the need for large high-quality studies on the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of CPAP therapy in these settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据