Jurnal wen

Aims: To determine the effects of low-flow oxygen therapy with humidified or

non-humidified oxygen in adult patients．

Background: Although non-humidified oxygen in low-flow oxygen therapy is recommended

by many guidelines, humidifying oxygen regardless of oxygen flow has been routinely

performed in China and Japan and further studies are needed to evaluate the evidence.

Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis that comply with the recommendations of the

Cochrane Collaboration were conducted.

Data Sources: Studies (1980–2016) were identified by searching PUBMED, EMBASE,

Science Direct, Cochrane library, CNKI and Wanfang Database.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive, systematic meta-analysis of randomized controlled

trials on the efficacy of humidified and non-humidified low-flow oxygen therapy. Summary

risk ratios or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a

fixed- or random-effects model.

Results: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8876 patients were

included. Non-humidified oxygen offers more benefits in reducing the bacterial contamination

of humidifier bottles, as shown by the mean operating time for oxygen administration and the

respiratory infections compared with humidified oxygen therapy. No significant differences

were found in dry nose, dry nose and throat, nosebleed, chest discomfort, the smell of oxygen

and SpO2 changes.

Conclusions: The routine humidification of oxygen in low-flow oxygen therapy is not

justifiable and non-humidified oxygen tend to be more beneficial. However, considering that

the quality of most included studies is poor, rigorously designed, large-scale randomized

controlled trials are still needed to identify the role of non-humidified oxygen therapy

Tujuan: Untuk mengetahui efek terapi oksigen aliran rendah dengan

dilembabkan atau
oksigen non-lembab pada pasien dewasa．
Latar belakang: Meskipun oksigen non-lembab dalam terapi oksigen aliran
rendah dianjurkan
oleh banyak pedoman, pelembab oksigen terlepas dari aliran oksigen telah
secara rutin
dilakukan di Cina dan Jepang dan studi lebih lanjut diperlukan untuk
mengevaluasi bukti.
Desain: Tinjauan sistematis dan meta-analisis yang sesuai dengan
rekomendasi dari
Kolaborasi Cochrane dilakukan.
Sumber Data: Studi (1980-2016) diidentifikasi dengan mencari PUBMED,
EMBASE,
Science Direct, perpustakaan Cochrane, CNKI, dan Database Wanfang.
Metode: Kami melakukan meta-analisis yang komprehensif dan sistematis dari
kontrol acak
uji coba pada kemanjuran terapi oksigen aliran rendah yang dilembabkan dan
tidak dilembabkan. Ringkasan
rasio risiko atau perbedaan rata-rata tertimbang dengan interval
kepercayaan 95% dihitung menggunakan a
model efek tetap atau acak.
Hasil: Dua puluh tujuh uji coba terkontrol secara acak dengan jumlah total
8876 pasien
termasuk. Oksigen non-lembab menawarkan lebih banyak manfaat dalam
mengurangi kontaminasi bakteri
botol pelembab, seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh waktu operasi rata - rata
untuk pemberian oksigen dan
infeksi pernapasan dibandingkan dengan terapi oksigen yang dilembabkan.
Tidak ada perbedaan signifikan
ditemukan di hidung kering, hidung dan tenggorokan kering, mimisan,
ketidaknyamanan dada, bau oksigen
dan perubahan SpO2.
Kesimpulan: Pelembab oksigen rutin dalam terapi oksigen aliran rendah tidak
oksigen yang dapat dibenarkan dan tidak dilembabkan cenderung lebih
bermanfaat. Namun, mengingat itu
kualitas dari sebagian besar studi termasuk miskin, dirancang dengan ketat,
skala besar secara acak
uji coba terkontrol masih diperlukan untuk mengidentifikasi peran terapi
oksigen non-lembab