• Javier Mariani, Alejandro Macchia, César Belziti, Maximiliano Deabreu, Juan Gagliardi, Hernán Doval, Gianni Tognoni, and Carlos Tajer.
• Grupo de Estudio, Docencia e Investigación Clínica, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. ja_mariani@hotmail.com
• J. Card. Fail. 2011 Oct 1;17(10):850-9.

BackgroundThe evidence of individual studies in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) supporting noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is still inconclusive, particularly regarding noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).MethodsWe carried out a meta-analysis. We searched in the Embase, Medline, Cinahl, Dare, Coch, Central, and CNKI databases and congress abstracts for trials comparing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or NIPPV with standard therapy (ST). To assess treatment effects, we carried out direct comparison using a random effects model and adjusted indirect comparison.ResultsAt total of 34 studies (3,041 patients) were included. In direct comparisons, both CPAP and NIPPV reduced the risk of death (relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.93; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58-1.10; respectively) compared with ST, although only CPAP had a significant effect. There were no significant differences between NIPPV and CPAP. Pooled results of direct and adjusted indirect comparisons showed that compared with ST, both CPAP and NIPPV significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.89; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97; respectively).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that among ACPE patients, NIV delivered through either NIPPV or CPAP reduced mortality.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

6 keywords...

hide…