Serpa Neto Ary, Filho Roberto Rabello, Cherpanath Thomas, Determann Rogier, Dongelmans Dave A, Paulus Frederique, Tuinman Pieter Roel, Pelosi Paolo, de Abreu Marcelo Gama, Schultz Marcus J
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Intensive Care, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ann Intensive Care. 2016 Dec;6(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0208-7. Epub 2016 Nov 3.
The aim of this investigation was to compare ventilation at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with regard to clinical important outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at onset of ventilation.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a lower level of PEEP with a higher level of PEEP was performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.
Twenty-one RCTs (1393 patients) were eligible. PEEP ranged from 0 to 10 cmHO and from 5 to 30 cmHO in the lower PEEP and the higher PEEP arms of included RCTs, respectively. In-hospital mortality was not different between the two PEEP arms in seven RCTs (risk ratio [RR] 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-1.21; I = 26%, low quality of evidence [QoE]), as was duration of mechanical ventilation in three RCTs (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.68; 95% CI -0.24 to 1.61; I = 82%, very low QoE). PaO/FiO was higher in the higher PEEP arms in five RCTs (SMD 0.72; 95% CI 0.10-1.35; I = 86%, very low QoE). Development of ARDS and the occurrence of hypoxemia (2 RCTs) were lower in the higher PEEP arms in four RCTs and two RCTs, respectively (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.21-0.91; I = 56%, low QoE; RR 0.42; 95%-CI 0.19-0.92; I = 19%, low QoE). There was no association between the level of PEEP and any hemodynamic parameter (four RCTs).
Ventilation with higher levels of PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality or shorter duration of ventilation, but with a lower incidence of ARDS and hypoxemia, as well as higher PaO/FiO. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as heterogeneity was moderate to high, the QoE was low to very low, and the available studies prevented us from addressing the effects of moderate levels of PEEP.
本研究旨在比较不同呼气末正压(PEEP)水平通气对通气开始时无急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的重症监护病房(ICU)患者临床重要结局的影响。
对比较较低PEEP水平与较高PEEP水平的随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析。主要结局是住院死亡率。
21项RCT(1393例患者)符合纳入标准。纳入的RCT中,较低PEEP组和较高PEEP组的PEEP分别为0至10 cmH₂O和5至30 cmH₂O。7项RCT中,两组的住院死亡率无差异(风险比[RR]0.87;95%置信区间[CI]0.62 - 1.21;I² = 26%,低质量证据[QoE]),3项RCT中机械通气时间也无差异(标准化均数差[SMD]0.68;95%CI -0.24至1.61;I² = 82%,极低QoE)。5项RCT中,较高PEEP组的PaO₂/FiO₂更高(SMD 0.72;95%CI 0.10 - 1.35;I² = 86%,极低QoE)。4项RCT中较高PEEP组的ARDS发生率较低,2项RCT中较高PEEP组的低氧血症发生率较低(分别为RR 0.43;95%CI 0.21 - 0.91;I² = 56%,低QoE;RR 0.42;95%CI 0.19 - 0.92;I² = 19%,低QoE)。PEEP水平与任何血流动力学参数之间均无关联(4项RCT)。
通气开始时无ARDS的ICU患者采用较高水平PEEP通气与较低的住院死亡率或较短的通气时间无关,但与较低的ARDS和低氧血症发生率以及较高的PaO₂/FiO₂有关。由于异质性为中度到高度,QoE为低到极低,且现有研究无法让我们评估中度PEEP水平的影响,因此对这些结果应谨慎解读。