Noninvasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Pulm Med. 2016 Aug 27;16(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s12890-016-0289-y.

Abstract

Background: To determine the effects of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) compared with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) as the initial mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes when used for treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in immunocompromised patients.

Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and other databases. Subgroup analyses by disease severity and causes of immunodeficiency were also conducted.

Results: Thirteen observational studies with a total of 2552 patients were included. Compared to IMV, NIV was shown to significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.80, P value = 0.007) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.20 to 0.61, P value < 0.0001) in overall analysis. Subgroup analysis showed NIV had great advantage over IMV for less severe, AIDS, BMT and hematological malignancies patients in reducing mortality and duration of ICU stay.

Conclusions: The overall evidence we obtained shows NIV does more benefits or at least no harm to ARF patients with certain causes of immunodeficiency or who are less severe.

Keywords: Acute respiratory failure; Immunocompromised patients; Invasive mechanical ventilation; Meta-analysis; Noninvasive mechanical ventilation; Systematic review.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Acute Disease
  • Hospital Mortality*
  • Humans
  • Immunocompromised Host*
  • Intensive Care Units
  • Noninvasive Ventilation*
  • Observational Studies as Topic
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Respiration, Artificial / methods*
  • Respiratory Insufficiency / mortality*
  • Respiratory Insufficiency / therapy*
  • Treatment Outcome