Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation

Brigitte Lemyre; Peter G Davis; Antonio G De Paoli; Haresh Kirpalani

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003212.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Study flow diagram: review update.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 NIPPV versus NCPAP to prevent extubation failure, Outcome 1 Respiratory failure post extubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 NIPPV versus NCPAP to prevent extubation failure, Outcome 2 Endotracheal re‐intubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 NIPPV versus NCPAP to prevent extubation failure, Outcome 3 Post hoc analysis (high‐quality studies): respiratory failure post extubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 NIPPV versus NCPAP and gastrointestinal complications, Outcome 1 Abdominal distension leading to cessation of feeds.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 NIPPV versus NCPAP and gastrointestinal complications, Outcome 2 Gastrointestinal perforation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 NIPPV versus NCPAP and gastrointestinal complications, Outcome 3 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 NIPPV versus NCPAP to improve pulmonary outcomes, Outcome 1 Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 NIPPV versus NCPAP to improve pulmonary outcomes, Outcome 2 Air leaks.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 NIPPV versus NCPAP and mortality, Outcome 1 Death before discharge.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 NIPPV versus NCPAP and duration of hospital admission, Outcome 1 Duration of hospital admission (days).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 NIPPV versus NCPAP and apnoea, Outcome 1 Rates of apnoea (episodes/24 h).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 1 Respiratory failure post extubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 2 Endotracheal re‐intubation during the week post extubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 3 Abdominal distension requiring cessation of feeds.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 4 Gastrointestinal perforation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 5 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 6 Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.7

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 7 Pulmonary air leak.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.8

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 8 Rates of apnoea (episodes/24 h).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.9

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 9 Duration of hospitalisation (days).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.10

Comparison 7 NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised), Outcome 10 Death before discharge.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 1 Respiratory failure post extubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 2 Endotracheal re‐intubation during the week post extubation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 3 Abdominal distension requiring cessation of feeds.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 4 Gastrointestinal perforation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 5 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 6 Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 7 Pulmonary air leak.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.8

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 8 Rates of apnoea (episodes/24 h).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.9

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 9 Duration of hospitalisation (days).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.10

Comparison 8 NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV), Outcome 10 Death before discharge.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings for the main comparison. NIPPV versus NCPAP

NIPPV versus NCPAP
Patient or population: preterm neonates after extubation Setting: neonatal intensive care unit Intervention: NIPPV Comparison: NCPAP
Outcomes	*Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with NCPAP	Risk with NIPPV
Respiratory failure post extubation	Study population		RR 0.70 (0.60 to 0.80)	1431 (10 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded OIS 554
	413 per 1000	289 per 1000 (248 to 330)
Endotracheal re‐intubation during the week post extubation	Study population		RR 0.76 (0.65 to 0.88)	1301 (8 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded OIS 724
	396 per 1000	301 per 1000 (257 to 348)
Abdominal distension requiring cessation of feeds	Study population		RR 1.27 (0.64 to 2.53)	199 (4 studies)	Low^a,b	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded Imprecision: wide confidence intervals
	112 per 1000	143 per 1000 (72 to 284)
Gastrointestinal perforation	Study population		RR 0.94 (0.60 to 1.48)	1066 (5 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded
	66 per 1000	62 per 1000 (40 to 98)
Necrotising enterocolitis	Study population		RR 0.87 (0.64 to 1.19)	1214 (6 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded
	127 per 1000	110 per 1000 (81 to 151)
Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks)	Study population		RR 0.94 (0.80 to 1.10)	1140 (6 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded
	355 per 1000	334 per 1000 (284 to 391)
Pulmonary air leak	Study population		RR 0.48 (0.28 to 0.82)	1229 (6 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded OIS 749
	61 per 1000	29 per 1000 (17 to 50)
Duration of hospitalisation (days)	Mean duration of hospitalisation (days) was 0	Mean duration of hospitalisation (days) in the intervention group was 2.77 higher (0.04 to 5.51 higher)		238 (4 studies)	Low^a,b	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded Imprecision: wide confidence intervals
Death before discharge	Study population		RR 0.69 (0.48 to 0.99)	1237 (6 studies)	Moderate^a	Risk of bias: intervention unblinded Imprecision OIS 1844
	104 per 1000	72 per 1000 (50 to 103)
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect but may be substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
^aIntervention unblinded. ^bImprecise estimate (wide confidence intervals).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. NIPPV versus NCPAP

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. NIPPV versus NCPAP to prevent extubation failure

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Respiratory failure post extubation Show forest plot	10	1431	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.60, 0.80]

1.1 Short (nasal) prongs	7	1275	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.63, 0.84]
1.2 Long (nasopharyngeal) prongs	3	156	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.31 [0.14, 0.65]
2 Endotracheal re‐intubation Show forest plot	8	1301	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.65, 0.88]

3 Post hoc analysis (high‐quality studies): respiratory failure post extubation Show forest plot	7	1266	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.73 [0.63, 0.85]

Comparison 1. NIPPV versus NCPAP to prevent extubation failure

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. NIPPV versus NCPAP and gastrointestinal complications

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Abdominal distension leading to cessation of feeds Show forest plot	4	199	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.27 [0.64, 2.53]

2 Gastrointestinal perforation Show forest plot	5	1066	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.60, 1.48]

3 Necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot	6	1214	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.64, 1.19]

Comparison 2. NIPPV versus NCPAP and gastrointestinal complications

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. NIPPV versus NCPAP to improve pulmonary outcomes

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks) Show forest plot	6	1140	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

2 Air leaks Show forest plot	6	1229	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.28, 0.82]

Comparison 3. NIPPV versus NCPAP to improve pulmonary outcomes

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. NIPPV versus NCPAP and mortality

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Death before discharge Show forest plot	6	1237	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.48, 0.99]

Comparison 4. NIPPV versus NCPAP and mortality

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. NIPPV versus NCPAP and duration of hospital admission

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Duration of hospital admission (days) Show forest plot	4	238	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.77 [0.04, 5.51]

Comparison 5. NIPPV versus NCPAP and duration of hospital admission

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. NIPPV versus NCPAP and apnoea

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Rates of apnoea (episodes/24 h) Show forest plot	1	54	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.10 [‐7.92, 1.72]

Comparison 6. NIPPV versus NCPAP and apnoea

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Respiratory failure post extubation Show forest plot	10	1431	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.60, 0.80]

1.1 Synchronised NIPPV	5	272	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.25 [0.15, 0.41]
1.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	4	314	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.46, 0.93]
1.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	845	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.72, 1.01]
2 Endotracheal re‐intubation during the week post extubation Show forest plot	10	1431	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.64, 0.85]

2.1 Synchronised NIPPV	5	272	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.19, 0.57]
2.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	4	314	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.46, 0.93]
2.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	845	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.72, 1.01]
3 Abdominal distension requiring cessation of feeds Show forest plot	3	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.76 [0.77, 4.05]

3.1 Synchronised NIPPV	3	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.76 [0.77, 4.05]
3.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Gastrointestinal perforation Show forest plot	5	1052	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.72, 1.01]

4.1 Synchronised NIPPV	3	159	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	1	48	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	845	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.72, 1.01]
5 Necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot	6	1214	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.64, 1.19]

5.1 Synchronised NIPPV	5	1147	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.64, 1.20]
5.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	1	67	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.72 [0.11, 4.79]
5.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
6 Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks) Show forest plot	6	1108	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.79, 1.10]

6.1 Synchronised NIPPV	3	181	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.64 [0.44, 0.95]
6.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	2	185	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.47, 1.16]
6.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	742	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.88, 1.30]
7 Pulmonary air leak Show forest plot	6	1222	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.67 [0.44, 1.02]

7.1 Synchronised NIPPV	2	113	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.35 [0.14, 0.90]
7.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	3	259	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.10 [0.58, 2.08]
7.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	850	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.61 [0.29, 1.28]
8 Rates of apnoea (episodes/24 h) Show forest plot	1	54	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.10 [‐7.92, 1.72]

8.1 Synchronised NIPPV	1	54	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.10 [‐7.92, 1.72]
8.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
8.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9 Duration of hospitalisation (days) Show forest plot	4	244	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.72 [‐0.01, 5.44]

9.1 Synchronised NIPPV	3	181	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	3.39 [0.52, 6.25]
9.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	1	63	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.48 [‐12.20, 5.24]
9.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Death before discharge Show forest plot	6	1237	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.48, 0.99]

10.1 Synchronised NIPPV	2	111	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.97 [0.21, 4.44]
10.2 Non‐synchronised NIPPV	3	266	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.35 [0.16, 0.75]
10.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	860	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.55, 1.31]

Comparison 7. NIPPV versus NCPAP (synchronised vs non‐synchronised)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV)

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Respiratory failure post extubation Show forest plot	10	1431	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.70 [0.60, 0.80]

1.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	8	450	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.32 [0.22, 0.47]
1.2 Bilevel NIPPV	1	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.50, 1.21]
1.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	845	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.72, 1.01]
2 Endotracheal re‐intubation during the week post extubation Show forest plot	10	1431	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.74 [0.64, 0.85]

2.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	8	450	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.39 [0.26, 0.59]
2.2 Bilevel NIPPV	1	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.50, 1.21]
2.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	845	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.72, 1.01]
3 Abdominal distension requiring cessation of feeds Show forest plot	3	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.76 [0.77, 4.05]

3.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	3	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.76 [0.77, 4.05]
3.2 Bilevel NIPPV	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Gastrointestinal perforation Show forest plot	6	1133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.60, 1.48]

4.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	6	1133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.60, 1.48]
4.2 Bilevel NIPPV	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
5 Necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot	6	1214	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.64, 1.19]

5.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	4	219	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.63 [0.21, 1.93]
5.2 Bilevel NIPPV	1	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.03 [0.38, 2.78]
5.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	859	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.63, 1.24]
6 Chronic lung disease (oxygen supplementation at 36 weeks) Show forest plot	7	1168	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.81, 1.11]

6.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	5	298	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.50, 0.95]
6.2 Bilevel NIPPV	1	128	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.95 [0.59, 1.55]
6.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	742	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.88, 1.30]
7 Pulmonary air leak Show forest plot	6	1229	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.28, 0.82]

7.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	4	243	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.35 [0.16, 0.79]
7.2 Bilevel NIPPV	1	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	850	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.61 [0.29, 1.28]
8 Rates of apnoea (episodes/24 h) Show forest plot	1	54	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.10 [‐7.92, 1.72]

8.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	1	54	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐3.10 [‐7.92, 1.72]
8.2 Bilevel NIPPV	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
8.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9 Duration of hospitalisation (days) Show forest plot	4	244	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.72 [‐0.01, 5.44]

9.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	4	244	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	2.72 [‐0.01, 5.44]
9.2 Bilevel NIPPV	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Death before discharge Show forest plot	6	1237	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.48, 0.99]

10.1 Ventilator‐generated NIPPV	4	241	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.18, 0.81]
10.2 Bilevel NIPPV	1	136	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.62 [0.15, 2.48]
10.3 Mixed NIPPV devices	1	860	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.55, 1.31]

Comparison 8. NIPPV versus NCPAP (ventilator‐generated NIPPV vs bilevel NIPPV)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet