Critical Care Medicine Program, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital, 585 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5G 2N2.
BMJ. 2010 May 18;340:c2327. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2327.
To determine clinical and physiological effects of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Electronic databases to March 2010, conference proceedings, bibliographies, and primary investigators.
Randomised controlled trials of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in adults or children with acute lung injury/ARDS. Data selection Three authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. Analyses used random effects models.
Eight randomised controlled trials (n=419 patients) were included; almost all patients had ARDS. Methodological quality was good. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen at 24, 48, and 72 hours was 16-24% higher in patients receiving high frequency oscillation. There were no significant differences in oxygenation index because mean airway pressure rose by 22-33% in patients receiving high frequency oscillation (P</=0.01). In patients randomised to high frequency oscillation, mortality was significantly reduced (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98, P=0.03; six trials, 365 patients, 160 deaths), and treatment failure (refractory hypoxaemia, hypercapnoea, hypotension, or barotrauma) resulting in discontinuation of assigned therapy was less likely (0.67, 0.46 to 0.99, P=0.04; five trials, 337 patients, 73 events). Other risks were similar. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials for physiological (I(2)=21-95%) but not clinical (I(2)=0%) outcomes. Pooled results were based on few events for most clinical outcomes.
High frequency oscillation might improve survival and is unlikely to cause harm. As ongoing large multicentre trials will not be completed for several years, these data help clinicians who currently use or are considering this technique for patients with ARDS.
比较高频振荡与常规通气在急性肺损伤/急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者中的临床和生理效果。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
截至 2010 年 3 月的电子数据库、会议记录、参考文献和主要研究人员。
高频振荡与常规通气比较的随机对照试验,用于成人或儿童的急性肺损伤/ARDS。
三位作者根据预设方案独立提取临床、生理和安全性结果的数据。我们联系了所有纳入研究的研究者以澄清方法并获得额外数据。分析使用随机效应模型。
纳入了 8 项随机对照试验(n=419 例患者);几乎所有患者均患有 ARDS。方法学质量良好。在接受高频振荡的患者中,24、48 和 72 小时时氧分压与吸入氧分数的比值高 16-24%。由于接受高频振荡的患者的平均气道压力升高 22-33%,因此氧合指数无显著差异(P</=0.01)。在接受高频振荡的患者中,死亡率显著降低(风险比 0.77,95%置信区间 0.61 至 0.98,P=0.03;6 项试验,365 例患者,160 例死亡),并且导致停止给予指定治疗的治疗失败(难治性低氧血症、高碳酸血症、低血压或气压伤)可能性降低(0.67,0.46 至 0.99,P=0.04;5 项试验,337 例患者,73 例事件)。其他风险相似。虽然生理(I(2)=21-95%)结果存在很大的异质性,但临床(I(2)=0%)结果无显著异质性。对于大多数临床结果,汇总结果基于少数事件。
高频振荡可能改善生存率,且不太可能造成危害。由于目前正在进行的大型多中心试验在未来几年内不会完成,因此这些数据有助于目前使用或正在考虑将该技术用于 ARDS 患者的临床医生。