Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Association of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Dianti, Jose; Tisminetzky, Manuel; Ferreyro, Bruno L; Englesakis, Marina; Del Sorbo, Lorenzo; Sud, Sachin; Talmor, Daniel; Ball, Lorenzo; Meade, Maureen; Hodgson, Carol; Beitler, Jeremy R; Sahetya, Sarina; Nichol, Alistair; Fan, Eddy; Rochwerg, Bram; Brochard, Laurent; Slutsky, Arthur S; Ferguson, Niall D; Serpa Neto, Ary; Adhikari, Neill K J; Angriman, Federico; Goligher, Ewan C.
  • Dianti J; University Health Network/Sinai Health System.
  • Tisminetzky M; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine.
  • Ferreyro BL; University Health Network/Sinai Health System.
  • Englesakis M; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine.
  • Del Sorbo L; University Health Network/Sinai Health System.
  • Sud S; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine.
  • Talmor D; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health.
  • Ball L; Library and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Meade M; University Health Network/Sinai Health System.
  • Hodgson C; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine.
  • Beitler JR; Division of Respirology and Critical Care Medicine, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Sahetya S; Institute for Better Health and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
  • Nichol A; Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Fan E; Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
  • Rochwerg B; Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine.
  • Brochard L; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
  • Slutsky AS; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Ferguson ND; Department of Intensive Care, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Serpa Neto A; Center for Acute Respiratory Failure and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
  • Adhikari NKJ; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Angriman F; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Goligher EC; Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(11): 1300-1310, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053493
ABSTRACT
Rationale The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown, and current practice is variable.

Objectives:

To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS.

Methods:

We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology. Measurements and Main

Results:

We included 18 randomized trials (4,646 participants). Compared with a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the esophageal pressure-guided strategy was 87% (RR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR, 1.06; 95% CrI, 0.89-1.22, low certainty). Compared with a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty).

Conclusions:

In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death than lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared with higher PEEP without LRM.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Respiratory Distress Syndrome / Positive-Pressure Respiration Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Journal subject: Critical Care Year: 2022 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Respiratory Distress Syndrome / Positive-Pressure Respiration Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Journal subject: Critical Care Year: 2022 Document Type: Article