Shukun Hong1, Hongye Wang2, Yonggang Tian1, Lujun Qiao1. 1. Department of Intensive Care Unit, Shengli Oilfield Central Hospital, Dongying, China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengli Oilfield Central Hospital, Dongying, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness between helmet and face mask noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: English databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Chinese databases involved Wanfang Data, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Chinese Biological Medicine Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing helmet and face mask NIMV for patients with ARF were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using Review manager 5.1.0. RESULTS: Twelve trials with a total of 569 patients were eligible. Our meta-analysis showed that, comparing with face mask, helmet could significantly decrease the incidences of intolerance [risk ratio (RR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.39], facial skin ulcer (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08-0.43) and aerophagia (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06-0.37), reduce respiratory rate [mean difference (MD) -3.10; 95% CI -4.85 to -1.34], intubation rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.59) and hospital mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.99) in patients with ARF, and improve oxygenation index in patients with hypoxemic ARF (MD 55.23; 95% CI 31.37-79.09). However, subgroupanalysis for hypercapnic ARF revealed that PaCO2 was significantly reduced in face mask group compared with helmet group (MD 5.34; 95% CI 3.41-7.27). CONCLUSION: NIMV with helmet can improve the patient's tolerance, reduce adverse events, increase oxygenation effect, and decrease intubation rate and hospital mortality comparing to face mask. However, the low number of patients from included studies may preclude strong conclusions. Large RCTs are still needed to provide more robust evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness between helmet and face mask noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). METHODS: English databases included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Chinese databases involved Wanfang Data, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Chinese Biological Medicine Database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing helmet and face mask NIMV for patients with ARF were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using Review manager 5.1.0. RESULTS: Twelve trials with a total of 569 patients were eligible. Our meta-analysis showed that, comparing with face mask, helmet could significantly decrease the incidences of intolerance [risk ratio (RR) 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.39], facial skin ulcer (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08-0.43) and aerophagia (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.06-0.37), reduce respiratory rate [mean difference (MD) -3.10; 95% CI -4.85 to -1.34], intubation rate (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.59) and hospital mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.99) in patients with ARF, and improve oxygenation index in patients with hypoxemic ARF (MD 55.23; 95% CI 31.37-79.09). However, subgroupanalysis for hypercapnic ARF revealed that PaCO2 was significantly reduced in face mask group compared with helmet group (MD 5.34; 95% CI 3.41-7.27). CONCLUSION:NIMV with helmet can improve the patient's tolerance, reduce adverse events, increase oxygenation effect, and decrease intubation rate and hospital mortality comparing to face mask. However, the low number of patients from included studies may preclude strong conclusions. Large RCTs are still needed to provide more robust evidence.