TY - T1的头盔相比,非侵入式通风面罩无创性通气和高流鼻插管在急性呼吸衰竭:系统回顾和荟萃分析JF -欧洲呼吸杂志》乔和J - 10.1183/13993003.01269 -2021欧元SP - 2101269 AU Dipayan乔杜里AU -拉赫曼Jinah AU -凯伦电子艺界烧伤盟费德里科•Angriman AU -布鲁诺Ferreyro盟Laveena Munshi AU -伊万·Goligher盟-达蒙尺度非盟-黛博拉·J·库克AU -托马索·毛里盟Bram Rochwerg Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - //www.qdcxjkg.com/content/early/2021/07/21/13993003.01269 2021. -抽象N2 -背景虽然小随机对照试验(相关的)和观察性研究已经检查头盔无创性通气(18),关于其作用的不确定性。我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析检查头盔和合的影响相比,面罩和合或高流鼻插管(HFNC)在急性呼吸衰竭。我们搜索多个数据库来识别相关的方法和观察性研究报告至少一个死亡率、插管,ICU滞留时间,和合持续时间、并发症,或与和合安慰疗法。我们的风险评估研究偏见(ROB)使用Cochrane抢工具相关的和Ottawa-Newcastle量表观察性研究和评价确定汇集证据的使用等级。结果我们分别汇集数据来自16个相关(n = 949)和8个观察性研究(n = 396)。面罩和合相比,基于低确定性的证据,头盔和合可以减少死亡率(相对危险度(RR) 0.56, 95%可信区间(CI)(0.33 - 0.95),和插管(相对危险度0.35,95%可信区间(0.22 - 0.56))在缺氧和hypercapnic呼吸衰竭但可能没有影响和合的持续时间。有一个不确定的头盔对ICU停留时间的影响,压疮的发展。观察性研究的数据与上述研究结果一致,但较低的确定性。基于低和非常低的确定性数据,头盔和合可以减少插管HFNC相比,但它对死亡率的影响是不确定的。结论与面罩和合相比,头盔和合可以降低死亡率和插管;然而,头盔HFNC相比的效果仍不确定。FootnotesThis手稿最近发表在《欧洲呼吸杂志》上。 It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interest: Dipayan Chaudhuri has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Rehman Jinah has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Karen E.A. Burns has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Federico Angriman has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Bruno Ferreyro is supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship.Conflict of interest: Laveena Munshi has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Ewan Goligher has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Damon Scales has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Deborah J. Cook has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interest: Tommaso Mauri received personal fees from Drager, Fisher and Paykel, BBraun, all outside of the submitted work.Conflict of interest: Bram Rochwerg has nothing to disclose. ER -