Helmet non-invasive ventilation compared to facemask non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Although small randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have examined helmet non-invasive ventilation (NIV), uncertainty remains regarding its role. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of helmet NIV compared to facemask NIV or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in acute respiratory failure. Methods We searched multiple databases to identify RCTs and observational studies reporting on at least one of mortality, intubation, ICU length of stay, NIV duration, complications, or comfort with NIV therapy. We assessed study risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane ROB tool for RCTs and the Ottawa-Newcastle scale for observational studies and rated certainty of pooled evidence using GRADE. Results We separately pooled data from 16 RCTs (n=949) and 8 observational studies (n=396). Compared to facemask NIV, based on low certainty evidence, helmet NIV may reduce mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.33 to 0.95)), and intubation (RR 0.35, 95% CI (0.22 to 0.56)) in both hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure but may have no effect on duration of NIV. There was an uncertain effect of helmet on ICU length of stay and development of pressure sores. Data from observational studies was consistent with the foregoing findings but of lower certainty. Based on low and very low certainty data, helmet NIV may reduce intubation compared to HFNC, but its effect on mortality is uncertain. Conclusion Compared to facemask NIV, helmet NIV may reduce mortality and intubation; however, the effect of helmet compared to HFNC remains uncertain.