Skip to main content

Table 2 General characteristics and general quality criteria of randomized trials in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema patients included in the study

From: Efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference

Country and Setting

Sample size

Interventions

Outcomes analyzed

Randomization assignment concealmenta

Objective selection criteriab

Blindingc

Standardization of co-interventionsd

Intention-to-treat analysise

Complete follow-up detailsf

Outcome definitiong

Rasanen et al. 1985 [62]

Finland: ED and ICU

40

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for ETI during 3 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Adequate

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Bersten et al. 1991 [63]

Australia: ICU

39

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for ETI during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Uncertain

Yes

No

Yes

Uncertain

Yes

Adequate

Lin et al. 1995 [57]

Taiwan: ICU

100

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for ETI during 6 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Uncertain

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Takeda et al. 1997 [11]

Japan: CU

30

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for ETI during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Uncertain

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Takeda et al. 1998 [12]

Japan: CU

22

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for ETI during 48 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Adequate

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Kelly et al. 2002 [16]

Scotland, UK: ED and HDU

58

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for treatment failure; in-hospital mortality

Adequate

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Inadequate

L'Her et al. 2004 [22]

France: ED

89

SMT vs CPAP

Meeting criteria for ETI or death during 48 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Adequate

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Masip et al. 2000 [13]

Spain: ED and ICU

37

SMT vs NPPV

Meeting criteria for ETI during 10 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Adequate

Yes

No

Yes

Uncertain

Yes

Adequate

Levitt et al. 2001 [14]

USA: ED

38

SMT vs NPPV

ETI decided by attending physician during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence.

Adequate

Yes

NR

Uncertain

Uncertain

Yes

Uncertain

Nava et al. 2003 [19]

Italy: ED

130

SMT vs NPPV

Meeting criteria for ETI during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Adequate

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Mehta et al. 1997 [25]

USA: ED

27

CPAP vs NPPV

ETI decided by attending physician during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Adequate

Yes

Yesh

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Uncertain

Martin-Bermudez et al. 2002 [17]

Spain: ED

80

CPAP vs NPPV

Meeting criteria for ETI during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Uncertain

Yes

NR

Uncertain

Adequate

Yes

Uncertain

Bellone et al. 2004 [20]

Italy: ED

46

CPAP vs NPPV

Meeting criteria for ETI during 36 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Adequate

Yes

No

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Bellone et al. 2005 [24]

Italy: ED

36

CPAP vs NPPV

Meeting criteria for ETI during 36 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality

Adequate

Yes

No

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

Park et al. 2001 [15]

Brazil: ED

26

SMT vs CPAP vs NPPV

ETI decided by attending physician during 1 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Uncertain

Yes

NR

Yes

Uncertain

Yes

Inadequate

Park et al. 2004 [23]

Brazil: ED

80

SMT vs CPAP vs NPPV

ETI decided by attending physician during 24 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Adequate

Yes

NR

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Uncertain

Crane et al. 2004 [21]

UK: ED

60

SMT vs CPAP vs NPPV

Meeting criteria for ETI during 2 h follow-up; in-hospital mortality; AMI incidence

Adequate

Yes

No

Yes

Adequate

Yes

Adequate

  1. aClassified as: adequate, inadequate or uncertain. bClassified as: yes, if inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants are adequately reported; no, if selection criteria are not reported. cClassified as: yes, for articles that implemented blinding at any level; no, for articles reporting not being able to implement blinding of interventions at any level; not reported (NR), for articles that do not make any mention to blinding. dClassified as: yes, if there was an attempt to standardize treatment and care besides the assigned interventions; no, if no attempt to standardize was applied; uncertain, if it was not clearly reported. eClassified as: adequate; inadequate; uncertain. fClassified as: yes; no; not reported (NR). gClassified as: adequate if objective criteria for endotracheal intubation were defined; inadequate if the criteria were not defined; and uncertain if criteria application was unclear (for example, depending on attending physician). hIn this study physicians, nurses and patients were blinded by covering the control panel on the device. AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; CU, coronary unit; ED, emergency department; ETI, endotracheal intubation; HDU, high dependency unit; ICU, intensive care unit; NPPV, non-invasive pressure ventilation; SMT, standard medical therapy.