A comparison of bilevel and continuous positive airway pressure noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema

Abstract

BackgroundWhether bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) is advantageous compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPO) remains uncertain. The aim of the meta-analysis was to assess potential beneficial and adverse effects of CPAP compared with BiPAP in patients with ACPO. MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing the treatment effects of BiPAP with CPAP were identified from electronic databases and reference lists from January 1966 to December 2012. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. In trials that fulfilled inclusion criteria, we critically evaluate the evidence for the use of noninvasive ventilation on rates of hospital mortality, endotracheal intubation, myocardial infarction, and the length of hospital stay. Data were combined using Review Manager 4.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Both pooled effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. ResultsTwelve randomized controlled trials with a total of 1433 patients with ACPO were included. The hospital mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.14; P = .46; I2 = 0%) and need for requiring invasive ventilation (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.38; P = .64; I2 = 0%) were not significantly different between patients treated with CPAP and those treated with BiPAP. The occurrence of new cases of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.17; P = .53, I2 = 0%) and length of hospital stay (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, −0.40 to 2.41; P = .98; I2 = 0%) were also not significantly different between the 2 groups. ConclusionsThere are no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP vs BiPAP. Based on the limited data available, our results suggest that there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP with BiPAP.