Objective: A growing number of research on the role of invasive and non-invasive ventilation treatment for acute respiratory failure and the comparison between the two approaches have been undertaken; nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on which one is superior to the other. The goal of this systematic review was to consolidate current data on the role of invasive and noninvasive ventilation treatment for acute respiratory failure and the comparison between the two approaches.

Methods: Authors began with recognizing the important examination proof that spots light on the role of invasive and non-invasive ventilation treatment for acute respiratory failure and the comparison between the two approaches. We led electronic writing look in the accompanying data sets: Ovid Medline (- present), Ovid Medline Daily Update, Ovid Medline in process and other non-filed references, Ovid Embase (- present), The Cochrane Library (latest issue) and Web of Science. Just examinations in English language were incorporated. The precise selection was acted in close collaboration with a clinical examination curator.

Results: We included 25 RCTs (3,302 participants. Although all certainty of evidence was very low, non-invasive respiratory management was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality. CPAP had the highest probability of being the best at reducing short-term mortality among all possible interventions, followed by PSV and HFNC; IMV and SOT were tied for the worst (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value: 93.2, 65.0, 44.1, 23.9, and 23.9, respectively).

Conclusion: It is critical to avoid excessive tidal volume and lung injury when performing noninvasive ventilation on patients with de novo AHRF. Although some of these patients require pressure support, it should be used with caution because it can cause excessive tidal volume and lung injury.