OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure (CDP) on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (> or < 1000 or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), methods of application of CDP (i.e. CPAP and CNP), application early versus late in the course of respiratory distress and high versus low pressure CDP and application of CDP in tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals, with the need for sensitivity analysis determined by trial quality.At the 2008 update, the objectives were modified to include preterm infants with respiratory failure.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 April 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to 30 April 2015) with no language restriction, as well as controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization (WHO).
SELECTION CRITERIA: All random or quasi-random trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were continuous distending pressure including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, or continuous negative pressure (CNP) via a chamber enclosing the thorax and the lower body, compared with spontaneous breathing with oxygen added as necessary.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each review author.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies involving 355 infants - two using face mask CPAP, two CNP, one nasal CPAP and one both CNP (for less ill babies) and endotracheal CPAP (for sicker babies). For this update, we included no new trials.Continuous distending pressure (CDP) is associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.81; typical risk difference (RD) -0.20, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.10; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 10; six studies; 355 infants), lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87; typical RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.04; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 25; six studies; 355 infants) and lower mortality in infants with birth weight above 1500 g (typical RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.84; typical RD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.08; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2.00 to 13.00; two studies; 60 infants). Use of CDP is associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.04; typical RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 17.00 to 25.00; six studies; 355 infants). We found no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (three studies, 260 infants), as well as no difference in outcome at nine to 14 years (one study, 37 infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CDP as CPAP or CNP is associated with reduced respiratory failure and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax. Four out of six of these trials were done in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is difficult to assess. Further research is required to determine the best mode of administration.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review study involving 20 eyes that underwent primary augmented trabeculectomy with mitomycin (MMC) and 10 eyes GDD implantation in 3 tertiary centres in Malaysia between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2019. They were followed up for at least 12 months postsurgical intervention. Intraocular pressure (IOP), number of topical IOP lowering medication and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Based on the IOP, the success was divided into complete and partial success, and failure. IOP and postsurgical complications were compared using the Repetitive Measure Analysis of Variance (RM ANOVA) and the Pearson chi-square test.
RESULTS: Both methods were effective in lowering the IOP. Eyes with primary augmented trabeculectomy have significant lower IOP compared to GDD implantation (p = 0.037). There was a higher incidence of postoperative hypotony (30%) in the trabeculectomy group. There was also a significant reduction of mean number of topical pressure-lowering drugs required postoperatively (p = 0.015). Complete success was achieved in 100% of eyes with trabeculectomy and 67% in GDD implantation (p = 0.047).
CONCLUSIONS: Primary augmented trabeculectomy and GDD implantation are good surgical options for the treatment of JOAG. Both methods provide IOP lowering at 1 year. However, trabeculectomy provides better pressure lowering, compared to GDD implantation in patients with JOAG.
METHODS: Participants in the HOPE 4 intervention group with baseline and 12 months of follow-up were included for analysis. They were divided into Every Visit (n=339) and
METHODS: the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library have been searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials that examine the impact of digital health intervention on blood pressure, body mass index, lipid profile, blood glucose, Six-Minute Walk Test, and peak oxygen consumption. filters were set to include studies published in English between 2000-2023.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in this review. Six-Minute Walk Test (MD = 16.70; 95% CI: 6.00 to 27.39, p = 0.000) and maximal oxygen consumption (SMD = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.45, p = 0.004) significantly improved following digital health intervention, after employing the sensitivity analysis significant improvement was observed in systolic (MD = -2.54; 95% CI: -4.98 to -0.11, p = 0.04) and diastolic blood pressure (SMD = -2.0182; 95% CI: -3.9436 to -0.0928, p = 0.04) favoring experimental groups. Subgroup analysis revealed significant improvement in quality of life after three months of follow-up (SMD = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.31, p = 0.00), no significant differences have been observed in body mass index, lipid profile, and blood glucose.
CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the significant impact of digital vs CBCR or usual care on physical capacity, blood pressure, and quality of life. Despite the non-statistically significant differences in body mass index and lipid profile, the comparable effect between the two methods suggests the superiority of digital over CBCR or usual care due to its convenient nature, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness.