Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Mar 6;3(3):CD010355.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010355.pub3.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients

Maria Fs Torres  1 , Gustavo Jm Porfírio, Alan Pv Carvalho, Rachel Riera
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients

Maria Fs Torres et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary complications are often seen during the postoperative period following lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some situations such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely used in hospitals, and is thought to reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is needed to critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients following pulmonary resection for lung cancer.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and PEDro until 21 December 2018, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies.

Selection criteria: We considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model.

Main results: Of the 190 references retrieved from the searches, 7 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (1 identified with the new search) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 486 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative use of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered 'high risk of bias' for including participants with more severe disease. The new study identified could not be included in the meta-analysis as its intervention differed from the other studies (use of pre and postoperative NIPPV in the same population).

Authors' conclusions: This review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in the postoperative period after pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Maria FS Torres: none known

Gustavo JM Porfírio: none known

Alan PV Carvalho: none known

Rachel Riera: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs no NIPPV, outcome: 1.1 Pulmonary complications rate.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs no NIPPV, outcome: 1.2 Rate of intubation.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs no NIPPV, outcome: 1.3 Mortality.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 NIPPV vs no NIPPV, outcome: 1.5 Length of hospital stay.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Auriant 2001 {published data only}
    1. Auriant I, Jallot A, Herve P, Cerrina J, Ladurie FLR, Fournier JL, et al. A comparison of non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) and conventional therapy in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) following lung resection. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001;163(5 Suppl):A:248.
    1. Auriant I, Jallot A, Hervé P, Cerrina J, Roy Ladurie F, Fournier JL, et al. Non‐invasive ventilation reduces mortality in acute respiratory failure following lung resection. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001;164(7):1231‐5. - PubMed
Barbagallo 2012 {published data only}
    1. Barbagallo M, Ortu A, Spadini E, Salvadori A, Ampollini L, Internullo E, et al. Prophylactic use of helmet CPAP after pulmonary lobectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study. Respiratory Care 2012;57(9):1418‐24. - PubMed
Danner 2012 {published data only}
    1. Danner BC, Koerber W, Emmert A, Olgemoeller U, Doerge H, Quintel M, et al. Non‐invasive pressure support ventilation in major lung resection for high risk patients: does it matter?. Open Journal of Thoracic Surgery 2012;2:63‐71.
Garutti 2014 {published data only}
    1. Garutti I, Puente‐Maestu L, Laso J, Sevilla R, Ferrando A, Frias I, et al. Comparison of gas exchange after lung resection with a Boussignac CPAP or Venturi mask. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2014;112(5):929‐35. - PubMed
Hernández 2018 {published data only}
    1. Hernández EG, Pérez AR, Gilard JF, Álamo MNM, Socorro ME, Suárez PR, et al. Prophylactic use of non‐invasive mechanical ventilation in lung resection. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2018;22:190‐8. - PubMed
Ludwig 2011 {published data only}
    1. Ludwig C, Angenendt S, Martins R, Mayer V, Stoelben E. Intermittent positive pressure breathing after lung surgery. Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals 2011;19(1):10‐13. - PubMed
Perrin 2007 {published data only}
    1. Perrin C, Jullien V, Vénissac N, Berthier F, Padovani B, Guillot F, et al. Prophylactic use of non‐invasive ventilation in patients undergoing lung resectional surgery. Respiratory Medicine 2007;101:1572‐8. - PubMed
Roceto 2014 {published data only}
    1. Roceto LS, Galhardo FDM, Saad IAB, Toro IFC. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) after lung resection: a randomized clinical trial [Pressão positiva contínua nas vias aéreas (CPAP) após ressecção pulmonar: ensaio clínico randomizado]. Sao Paulo Medical Journal 2014;132(1):41‐7. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Aguilo 1997 {published data only}
    1. Aguilo R, Togores B, Pons S, Rubi M, Barbe F, Agusti AGN. Non‐invasive ventilatory support after lung resectional surgery. Chest 1997;112(1):117‐21. - PubMed
Ingwersen 1993 {published data only}
    1. Ingwersen UM, Larsen KR, Bertelsen MT, Nielsen KK, Laub M, Sandermann J, et al. Three different mask physiotherapy regimens for prevention of post‐operative pulmonary complications after heart and pulmonary surgery. Intensive Care Medicine 1993;19:294‐8. - PubMed
Liao 2010 {published data only}
    1. Liao G, Chen R, He J. Prophylactic use of non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation in post‐thoracic surgery patients: a prospective randomized control study. Journal of Thoracic Diseases 2010;2:205‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Nery 2012 {published data only}
    1. Nery F, Lopes AJ, Domingos DN, Cunha RF, Peixoto MG, Higa C, et al. CPAP increases 6‐minutes walk distance after lung resection surgery. Respiratory Care 2012;57(3):363‐9. - PubMed

Additional references

Arozullah 2003
    1. Arozullah AM, Conde MV, Lawrence VA. Preoperative evaluation for postoperative pulmonary complications. Medical Clinics of North America 2003;87(1):153‐73. - PubMed
Brochard 2002
    1. Brochard L, Mancebo J, Elliott MW. Non‐invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. European Respiratory Journal 2002;19(4):712‐21. - PubMed
Brooks‐Brunn 1995
    1. Brooks‐Brunn JA. Postoperative atelectasis and pneumonia. Heart & Lung 1995;24:94‐115. - PubMed
Ferlay 2010
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International Journal of Cancer 2010;127:2893‐917. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Igai 2009
    1. Igai H, Takahashi M, Ohata K, Yamashina A, Matsuoka T, Kameiama K, et al. Surgical treatment for non small cell lung cancer in octogenarians ‐ the usefulness of video‐assisted thoracic surgery. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 2009;9:274‐7. - PubMed
Jemal 2011
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2011;61:69‐90. - PubMed
Kutlu 2000
    1. Kutlu CA, Williams EA, Evans TW, Pastorino U, Goldstraw P. Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome after pulmonary resection. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2000;69:376‐80. - PubMed
Lorut 2005
    1. Lorut C, Rabbat A, Chatelier G, Lefevre A, Roche N, Regnard JF, et al. The place of routine immediate non‐invasive ventilation following pulmonary resection in preventing pulmonary complications in patients with COPD (POPVNI Trial) [Intérêt de la ventilation non invasive (VNI) systématique in post‐opératoire immédiat d'une résection pulmonaire pour prévenir les complications pulmonaires chez les patients BPCO (essai POPVNI)]. Revue des Maladies Respiratoires 2005;22(1 Pt 1):127‐34. - PubMed
Martin 2000
    1. Martin TJ, Hovis JD, Costantino JP, Bierman MI, Donahoe MP, Rogers RM, et al. A randomized, prospective evaluation of noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine 2000;161(3 Pt 1):807‐13. - PubMed
Nakagawa 2001
    1. Nakagawa M, Tanaka H, Tsukuma H, Kishi Y. Relationship between the duration of the preoperative smoke‐free period and the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications after pulmonary surgery. Chest 2001;120(3):705‐10. - PubMed
NICE 2011
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lung cancer. The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer, 2011. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG121. (accessed 26 November 2012).
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Rivera 2007
    1. Rivera MP, Mehta AC. Initial diagnosis of lung cancer: ACCP evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2007;132:131S‐48S. - PubMed
Schettino 2007
    1. Schettino GP, Reis MA, Galas F, Park M, Franca S, Okamoto V. Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation [Ventilação mecânica não invasiva com pressão positiva]. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia 2007;33 Suppl 2:92‐105. - PubMed
Suksompong 2012
    1. Suksompong S, Thamtanavit S, Bormann B, Thongcharoen P. Thoracic surgery mortality and morbidity in a university hospital. Asian Cardiovascular & Thoracic Annals 2012;20(2):182‐7. - PubMed
Vital 2008
    1. Vital FM, Sarconato H, Ladeira MT, Sen A, Hawkes CA, Soares B, et al. Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005351.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Torres 2013
    1. Torres MFS, Carvalho APV, Riera R. Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010355] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances