Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, Canada.
Physiology & Experimental Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada.
J Crit Care. 2017 Oct;41:64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.04.041. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
To evaluate the hospital survival in patients with severe ARDS managed with ECMO and low tidal volume ventilation as compared to patients managed with low tidal volume ventilation alone.
Electronic databases were searched for studies of at least 10 adult patients with severe ARDS comparing the use of ECMO with low tidal volume ventilation to mechanical ventilation with a low tidal volume alone. Only studies reporting hospital or ICU survival were included. All identified studies were assessed independently by two reviewers.
Of 1782 citations, 27 studies (n=1674) met inclusion criteria. Hospital survival for ECMO patients ranged from 33.3 to 86%, while survival with conventional therapy ranged from 36.3 to 71.2%. Five studies were identified with appropriate control groups allowing comparison, but due to the high degree of variability between studies (I=63%), their results could not be pooled. Two of these studies demonstrated a significant difference, both favouring ECMO over conventional therapy.
Given the lack of studies with appropriate control groups, our confidence in a difference in outcome between the two therapies remains weak. Future studies on the use of ECMO for severe ARDS are needed to clarify the role of ECMO in this disease.
评估与单独低潮气量通气相比,使用体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)联合低潮气量通气治疗严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的住院生存率。
电子数据库检索了至少 10 例比较 ECMO 联合低潮气量通气与单纯低潮气量机械通气治疗严重 ARDS 患者的成人研究。仅纳入报告住院或 ICU 生存率的研究。所有确定的研究均由两位评审员独立评估。
在 1782 条引文中有 27 项研究(n=1674)符合纳入标准。ECMO 患者的住院生存率为 33.3%至 86%,而常规治疗的生存率为 36.3%至 71.2%。有 5 项研究确定了适当的对照组以进行比较,但由于研究之间存在高度的变异性(I=63%),无法对其结果进行汇总。其中两项研究表明存在显著差异,均表明 ECMO 优于常规治疗。
鉴于缺乏适当对照组的研究,我们对两种治疗方法之间结局差异的信心仍然较弱。需要进一步研究 ECMO 在严重 ARDS 中的应用,以明确 ECMO 在这种疾病中的作用。