Non-invasive respiratory support in pediatric patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is globally one of the most common causes of admission to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). There is no clear evidence on which non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) modalities are most effective. We aimed to summarize the existing evidence and compare different NRS modalities in children with AHRF. Methods: We searched Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, WHO ICTRP, ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 26, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of different NRS approaches compared with another NRS or standard oxygen therapy (SOT) for children with AHRF were included. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed network meta-analysis (NMA) with frequentist random effects model and chose relative effects (risk ratios, RRs) and absolute effects (risk differences, RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as measures of effect. In-hospital mortality, need of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and treatment failure were identified as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were PICU and hospital length of stay, PICU admission, total duration of NRS and oxygen inhalation, ventilation intolerance rate, sedation use, serious adverse events (SAEs), pressure injuries, and abdominal distension. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42024529804. Findings: 30 trials with 8163 participants were included. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) reduced IMV risk compared with SOT (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.97; high certainty evidence). Compared with SOT, both CPAP (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99; moderate certainty evidence) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC; RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.80; moderate certainty evidence) reduced treatment failure, but increased intolerance (CPAP: RR, 30.57; 95% CI, 4.71-198.63, HFNC: RR, 10.12; 95% CI, 1.79-57.31; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.61) increased the risk of PICU admission and CPAP (MD, 6.4 h more; 95% CI, 1.7-11.1 more) prolonged NRS duration (both high certainty evidence). Compared with HFNC, CPAP (RR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.30-4.47) increased the risk of pressure injury (moderate certainty evidence). Compared with SOT, HFNC (MD, 6.3 h fewer; 95% CI, 11.1-1.5 fewer) may reduce the duration of oxygen (low certainty evidence). Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) may reduce IMV relative to SOT (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.96) but the certainty of evidence was very low. Subgroup analyses showed CPAP (versus SOT) reduced mortality/treatment failure risk in PICUs (ICEMAN: low credibility), whereas HFNC (versus SOT) lowered IMV risk in PICUs and low- and middle-income countries (ICEMAN: moderate credibility). No significant differences were found in in-hospital mortality, SAEs, hospital and PICU LOS, sedation use, and abdominal distension. Interpretation: In pediatric patients with AHRF, CPAP is likely more favorable NRS mode than HFNC. NRS appears beneficial particularly in resource-limited settings. Additionally, our findings highlight the need for more RCTs to confirm the present conclusions, especially for NIV. Funding: This study was funded by the Foundation of the First Hospital of Lanzhou University (ldyyyn2023-16), the Gansu Provincial Health Industry Scientific Research Project (GSWSKY2024-18), the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (25JRRA776), the Lanzhou University Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Action Plan Project (20230060047) and the Lanzhou University Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Action Plan Project (20220060168).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,056 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,154 | 0,017 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».