Abstract
Background Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are a leading cause of under-5 mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and interventions to reduce mortality are needed. Non-invasive ventilation has been shown to reduce mortality for neonates; however, data for children >1 month of age in LMICs are lacking. The objective of this study was to systematically review the available literature to determine if non-invasive ventilation as the primary modality of respiratory support is efficacious and safe for the management of respiratory distress in non-neonatal pediatric patients in LMICs.
Methods We systematically reviewed all studies assessing the endpoints of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of non-invasive ventilation for pediatric LRTIs in LMICs. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed on April 7, 2020. Included studies assessed the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in the hospital setting for pediatric patients with respiratory distress from 1 month - 15 years of age in LMICs. All study types, including case reports and case series were included. Studies focusing exclusively on neonates (<28 days old) were excluded. Mortality and rates of adverse events were extracted using Covidence by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using GRADE criteria for randomized control trials and a standardized risk of bias assessment tool for observational studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018084278).
Findings A total of 2174 papers were screened and 20 met criteria for inclusion. There were 5 randomized control trials (RCTs), including 3 large, well-designed RCTs. The first RCT, the ‘Bangladesh trial,’ found that children who received bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) compared to low-flow oxygen had a significantly lower risk of failure (6% in CPAP and 24% in low-flow oxygen, p=0.0026) and mortality (4% in CPAP and 15% in low-flow oxygen, p=0.022). A second RCT, the ‘Ghana trial,’ found no decrease in all-cause mortality between the CPAP and control arms (3% and 4% respectively, p=0.11); however, an adjusted secondary analysis demonstrated decreased mortality for children under 1 year of age (3% in CPAP and 7% in control group, p=0.01). The third RCT, the ‘Malawi trial,’ compared bCPAP to low flow oxygen and found higher mortality in the bCPAP arm (17% and 11% respectively, p=0.036). Among the non-RCT studies, mortality rates ranged from 0-55%.
Interpretation The evidence of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety is mixed regarding the use of NIV in children with respiratory failure in LMICs. Our review of the literature suggests that CPAP for non-neonatal pediatric patients should be considered only in well-controlled, high acuity units with high provider-to-patient ratios and direct physician supervision. Until further data are available, CPAP use in LMICs should be limited to children less than 1 year of age. Further research is needed to determine best practices for CPAP prior to wide-spread implementation.
Funding There was no funding source for this study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=84278
Funding Statement
There was no funding source for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study only evaluated previously published data
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The corresponding author has full access to the data which is available upon request.
