Non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of non-invasive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (NHFOV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in preterm infants.DesignThe study conducted a comprehensive analysis across three databases, namely EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central, to identify randomised controlled trials comparing NHFOV and NCPAP. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager V.5.3 software.Main outcomes measuresThe primary outcomes of the study were the intubation or reintubation rate in the NHFOV and NCPAP groups. Additionally, secondary outcomes included the partial pressure of carbon dioxide levels and major complications associated with non-invasive respiratory support ventilation.ResultsTen randomised controlled studies, involving 2031 preterm infants, were included in this meta-analysis. When compared with NCPAP, NHFOV demonstrated a significant reduction in the intubation or reintubation rate (p<0.01, relative risk=0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.55), and there was no statistical difference in related complications.ConclusionIn preterm infants, NHFOV appears to be an effective intervention for decreasing the intubation or reintubation rate compared with NCPAP, with no increase in associated complications.Trial registration numberCRD42023403968.