Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 14, 2026

Preoxygenation Techniques for Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Adults Utilizing Oxygen Mask and Noninvasive Ventilation
Published on: December 5, 2025
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children
Steven Kwasi Korang1, Joshua Feinberg, Jørn Wetterslev
1Pediatric Department, Holbaek Sygehus, Smedelundsgade 60, Holbaek, Denmark, 4300.
Insights
Limited evidence suggests non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) may reduce asthma symptoms in children. However, current research is of very low quality, necessitating larger trials to confirm these findings.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Respiratory Medicine
- Critical Care
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- Asthma is a leading cause of pediatric hospitalizations, imposing a significant economic burden.
- Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) use is increasing for acute pediatric asthma despite weak supporting evidence and lack of guideline recommendations.
- A systematic review is needed to evaluate NPPV's efficacy as an adjunct therapy for acute childhood asthma.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care for children hospitalized with acute asthma.
- To synthesize evidence from randomized clinical trials on NPPV's effectiveness in pediatric asthma management.
Main Methods:
- Systematic search of multiple bibliographic databases and clinical trial registries up to February 2016.
- Inclusion of randomized clinical trials comparing NPPV plus usual care versus usual care alone in children (<18 years) with acute asthma.
- Independent screening of studies, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction by two reviewers.
Main Results:
- Two randomized clinical trials with a total of 40 participants (20 NPPV, 20 control) were included.
- Both studies exhibited a high risk of bias, yielding very low-quality evidence.
- NPPV showed a statistically significant reduction in asthma symptom scores in both trials, with potential clinical relevance, though meta-analysis was not possible due to data limitations.
- Adverse events included dropouts due to intolerance to NPPV and one case requiring intubation.
Conclusions:
- The current evidence is insufficient to confirm or refute the effectiveness of NPPV for acute asthma in children.
- Larger, high-quality randomized clinical trials with low risk of bias are essential to guide clinical practice.
- Further research is warranted to establish the role of NPPV in managing pediatric acute asthma.
Background:
Asthma is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission among children and constitutes a significant economic burden. Use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the care of children with acute asthma has increased even though evidence supporting the intervention has been considered weak and clinical guidelines do not recommend the intervention. NPPV might be an effective intervention for acute asthma, but no systematic review has been conducted to assess the effects of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care in children with acute asthma.
Objectives:
To assess the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care (e.g. bronchodilators and corticosteroids) in children with acute asthma.
Search Methods:
We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR). The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception to February 2016, with no restriction on language of publication.
Selection Criteria:
We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing NPPV as add-on therapy to usual care versus usual care for children (age < 18 years) hospitalised for an acute asthma attack.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts. We retrieved all relevant full-text study reports, independently screened the full text, identified trials for inclusion and identified and recorded reasons for exclusion of ineligible trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author. We recorded the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) flow diagram and 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table. We identified the risk of bias of included studies to reduce the risk of systematic error. We contacted relevant study authors when data were missing.
Main Results:
We included two RCTs that randomised 20 participants to NPPV and 20 participants to control. We assessed both studies as having high risk of bias; both trials assessed effects of bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Neither trial used continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Controls received standard care. Investigators reported no deaths and no serious adverse events (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision of results). Both trials showed a statistically significant reduction in symptom score. One trial did not report a standard deviation (SD), but by using an estimated SD, we found a statistically significantly reduced asthma symptom score (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.70 to -0.30, P = 0.03, 19 participants, GRADE: very low quality of evidence). In the other trial, NPPV was associated with a lower total symptom score (5.6 vs 1.9, 16 participants, very low quality of evidence) before cross-over, but investigators did not report an SD, nor could it be estimated from the first phase of the trial, before the cross-over. These gains could be clinically relevant, as a reduction of three or more points in symptom score is considered a clinically meaningful change. Researchers documented five dropouts (12.5%), four of which were due to intolerance to NPPV, and one to respiratory failure requiring intubation. Owing to insufficient reporting in the latter trial and use of different scoring systems, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis nor a Trial Sequential Analysis.
Authors' Conclusions:
Current evidence does not permit confirmation or rejection of the effects of NPPV for acute asthma in children. Large RCTs with low risk of bias are warranted.
Related Concept Videos
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
Ventilatory Modes
There are three ventilatory modes: full support, partial support, and spontaneous. These are described below.
Full Support Modes
Full support modes include controlled mechanical ventilation, continuous mandatory...
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation II: ACLS Airway Management
Asthma-IV: Diagnostic and Management
Clinical Assessment for Asthma:
This is the first step in diagnosing and managing asthma. It includes:

