Cochrane · systematic review · CD004104
Non‐invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Osadnik, CR, Tee, VS, Carson‐Chahhoud, KV, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
AirwaysAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
3
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 3 · 100%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Non‐invasive ventilation versus usual medical care for management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (overall effects)
Population: Patients admitted to hospital with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mortality Non‐invasive ventilation vs usual medical care | RR 0.54 [0.38, 0.76] | 12 studies · 854 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Need for endotracheal intubation Non‐invasive ventilation vs usual medical care | RR 0.36 [0.28, 0.46] | 17 studies · 1105 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Length of hospital stay (days) Non‐invasive ventilation vs usual medical care | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 888 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |