Key result
NPPV improves LVEF by ~5 points compared to control in chronic heart failure.
Why the study?
Does noninvasive positive pressure ventilation improve cardiac function and outcomes in adults with chronic heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=843)
Does noninvasive positive pressure ventilation improve cardiac function and outcomes in adults with chronic heart failure?
Mean Difference: 5.34 (95% CI 3.85–6.82)
p-value: p=<0.00001
NPPV in addition to standard medical therapy significantly improves surrogate markers of heart failure (LVEF and BNP) but does not show a mortality benefit over short-term follow-up.
NPPV may improve LVEF as adjunctive therapy in chronic HF; extends meta-analytic evidence on surrogates without mortality benefit.
Instruction and Objectives . Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) alleviates sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and it may improve cardiac function in SDB patients. Because large randomized controlled trials directly evaluating the impact of NPPV on cardiac function are lacking, we conducted a meta-analysis of published data on effectiveness of NPPV in improving cardiac function in patients with chronic heart failure regardless of SDB presence. Methods . Controlled trials were identified in PubMed, OVID, and EMBASE databases. Both fixed and randomized models were used in meta-analysis with primary outcomes of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Results . Nineteen studies were included with a total of 843 patients. Compared to standard medical treatment (SMT) plus sham-NPPV or SMT only, NPPV plus SMT was associated with improvement in LVEF (weighted mean difference 5.34, 95% CI,[3.85,6.82];P<0.00001) and plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level (weighted mean difference −117.37, 95% CI,[-227.22,-7.52];P=0.04) and no influence on overall mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI,[0.96,1.04];P=0.95). Conclusions . In the present meta-analysis, use of NPPV plus SMT improved LVEF and reduced plasma BNP level but did not improve overall mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis in Chronic heart failure (n=843). Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation vs. Standard medical treatment plus sham-NPPV or standard medical treatment alone was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 5.34, 95% CI 3.85-6.82, p=<0.00001). Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (WMD 5.34, 95% CI 3.85-6.82, p<0.00001) compared to control in patients with chronic heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: