Moran John L, Bersten Andrew D, Solomon Patricia J
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, 5011 Woodville, SA, Australia.
Intensive Care Med. 2005 Feb;31(2):227-35. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2506-z. Epub 2005 Jan 28.
OBJECTIVE: The role of protective ventilation in acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial. Evidence was sought from published randomised trials for a consistent treatment effect of protective ventilation and any covariate modification. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of protective ventilation trials in ALI/ARDS and meta-regression of covariates on treatment effect (log odds ratio), with respect to 28-day mortality. Heterogeneity impact on the meta-analysis was assessed by the H statistic (substantial impact, >1.5) and graphical analysis. Five trials with a total of 1,202 patients were considered. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Average 28-day mortality was 0.40 in the treatment group (protective ventilation, n=605) vs. 0.46 in the control group (control ventilation, n=597). The treatment effect (odds ratio) was: fixed-effects, 0.71 (95% CI 0.56-0.91, p=0.006; heterogeneity, p=0.06) and random effects: 0.80 (95% CI 0.49-1.31, p=0.37). Heterogeneity impact (H statistic=1.50) was adjudged as modest. The treatment effect was significant and (a) favoured protective ventilation for a tidal volume less than 7.7 ml/kg predicted (treatment group) and a mean plateau pressure of 30 cmH(2)O or higher (control group) but was not influenced by plateau pressure 21-30 cmH(2)O (treatment group) and (b) depended upon plateau pressure difference greater than 5-7 cmH(2)O between protective ventilation and standard ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall treatment effect estimate favoured protective ventilation but did not achieve statistical significance. Protective ventilation depended upon threshold levels of tidal volume, plateau pressure, and plateau pressure difference.
目的:保护性通气在急性肺损伤(ALI)和急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)中的作用存在争议。我们从已发表的随机试验中寻找证据,以确定保护性通气的一致治疗效果及任何协变量调整情况。 设计:对ALI/ARDS中保护性通气试验进行荟萃分析,并对协变量对治疗效果(对数比值比)进行荟萃回归分析,以28天死亡率为指标。通过H统计量(显著影响,>1.5)和图形分析评估异质性对荟萃分析的影响。共纳入5项试验,总计1202例患者。 测量与结果:治疗组(保护性通气,n = 605)的28天平均死亡率为0.40,对照组(控制通气,n = 597)为0.46。治疗效果(比值比)为:固定效应模型,0.71(95%置信区间0.56 - 0.91,p = 0.006;异质性,p = 0.06);随机效应模型,0.80(95%置信区间0.49 - 1.31,p = 0.37)。异质性影响(H统计量 = 1.50)被判定为中等。治疗效果显著,且(a)对于预测潮气量小于7.7 ml/kg的情况(治疗组)以及平均平台压为30 cmH₂O或更高的情况(对照组),支持保护性通气,但不受治疗组平台压21 - 30 cmH₂O的影响;(b)取决于保护性通气与标准通气之间的平台压差大于5 - 7 cmH₂O。 结论:总体治疗效果估计支持保护性通气,但未达到统计学显著性。保护性通气取决于潮气量、平台压和平台压差的阈值水平。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013-2-28
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-11-17
Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2024-5-12
Ann Intensive Care. 2019-4-25
J Crit Care. 2015-6
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2011-4
BMJ Clin Evid. 2010-11-30
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003-9-1
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003-9-1
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003-7-15
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003-3-15
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002-12-1
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002-12-1
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002-12-1
Stat Med. 2002-6-15