Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16646987›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2006

Efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

João C Winck, Luís F Azevedo, Altamiro Costa-Pereira, Massimo Antonelli, Jeremy C Wyatt

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00405314 (Prehospital CPAP Versus Usual Care for Acute Respiratory Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00405314 nacompletednot on this map

Prehospital CPAP Versus Usual Care for Acute Respiratory Failure: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDalhousie UniversityRan2002 to 2006Enrolled60ConditionsRespiratory Insufficiency, HypoxiaArmsContinuous positive airway pressure ventilation mask
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 267 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema in Emergency Medicine.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

João C WinckDepartment of Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.
Luís F Azevedo
Altamiro Costa-Pereira
Massimo Antonelli
Jeremy C Wyatt
Universidade do Porto · PTUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionContinuous positive airway pressure ventilation (CPAP) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) are accepted treatments in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). However, it remains unclear whether NPPV is better than CPAP in reducing the need for endotracheal intubation (NETI) rates, mortality and other adverse events. Our aim was to review the evidence about the efficacy and safety of these two methods in ACPE management.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of CPAP and/or NIPV in the treatment of ACPE, considering the outcomes NETI, mortality and incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We searched six electronic databases up to May 2005 without language restrictions, reviewed references of relevant articles, hand searched conference proceedings and contacted experts.

resultsOf 790 articles identified, 17 were included. In a pooled analysis, 10 studies of CPAP compared to standard medical therapy (SMT) showed a significant 22% absolute risk reduction (ARR) in NETI (95% confidence interval (CI), -34% to -10%) and 13% in mortality (95%CI, -22% to -5%). Six studies of NPPV compared to SMT showed an 18% ARR in NETI (95%CI, -32% to -4%) and 7% in mortality (95%CI, -14% to 0%). Seven studies of NPPV compared to CPAP showed a non-significant 3% ARR in NETI (95%CI, -4% to 9%) and 2% in mortality (95%CI, -6% to 10%). None of these methods increased AMI risk. In a subgroup analysis, NPPV did not lead to better outcomes than CPAP in studies including more hypercapnic patients.

conclusionRobust evidence now supports the use of CPAP and NPPV in ACPE. Both techniques decrease NETI and mortality compared to SMT and none shows increased AMI risk. CPAP should be considered a first line intervention as NPPV did not show a better efficacy, even in patients with more severe conditions, and CPAP is cheaper and easier to implement in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseContinuous Positive Airway PressureHumansPulmonary Edema

Identifiers

PMID16646987
PMCPMC1550884
OpenAlexW2121388613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.