What do systematic reviews say?

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care showed no clear difference in cardiovascular mortality ‐ after 24 months Number of participants:… compared with best supportive care (low certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.17 [0.68, 2.02]
  Studies not reported
  Low

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  Low

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

It is very uncertain whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care changes all‐cause mortality ‐ after 24 months Number of participants: 287(2… compared with best supportive care (very low certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.14 [0.83, 1.56]
  Studies not reported
  Very low

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care vs best supportive care

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) plus best supportive care may leads to lower time to life‐saving cardiovascular intervention ( compared with best supportive care (low certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for central sleep apnoea in adults 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  Low

NPPV vs SMC

NPPV may leads to lower HOSPITAL MORTALITY compared with SMC (low certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.65 [0.51, 0.82]
  21 studies · 2484 participants
  Low

NPPV vs SMC

NPPV probably leads to lower ETI RATE compared with SMC (moderate certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.49 [0.38, 0.62]
  20 studies · 2449 participants
  Moderate

NPPV vs SMC

NPPV showed no clear difference in ACUTE MI INCIDENCE compared with SMC (moderate certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.03 [0.91, 1.16]
  5 studies · 1313 participants
  Moderate

NPPV vs SMC

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  11 studies · 1714 participants
  Very low

NPPV vs SMC

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  6 studies · 587 participants
  Very low

NPPV vs SMC

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

NPPV vs SMC

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  11 studies · 2038 participants
  Low

NIPPV vs no NIPPV

NIPPV showed no clear difference in pulmonary complications compared with no NIPPV (low certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.03 [0.72, 1.47]
  4 studies · 238 participants
  Low

NIPPV vs no NIPPV

NIPPV showed no clear difference in rate of intubation compared with no NIPPV (moderate certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.55 [0.25, 1.2]
  2 studies · 69 participants
  Moderate

NIPPV vs no NIPPV

NIPPV showed no clear difference in mortality compared with no NIPPV (moderate certainty).

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.6 [0.24, 1.53]
  4 studies · 151 participants
  Moderate

NIPPV vs no NIPPV

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 69 participants
  Low

NIPPV vs no NIPPV

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer… 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 101 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 16 participants
  Very low