低潮气量与非容量限制策略治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Low Tidal Volume versus Non-Volume-Limited Strategies for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

1 Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

2 Interdivisional Department of Critical Care and.

出版信息

Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Oct;14(Supplement_4):S271-S279. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-337OT.

Abstract

RATIONALE

Trials investigating use of lower tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown mixed results.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes of mechanical ventilation strategies that limit tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures (LTV) to strategies with tidal volumes of 10 to 15 ml/kg among patients with ARDS.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials investigating LTV mechanical ventilation strategies. We used random effects models to evaluate the effect of LTV on 28-day mortality, organ failure, ventilator-free days, barotrauma, oxygenation, and ventilation. Our primary analysis excluded trials for which the LTV strategy was combined with the additional strategy of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), but these trials were included in a stratified sensitivity analysis. We performed metaregression of tidal volume gradient achieved between intervention and control groups on mortality effect estimates. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to determine the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials involving 1,481 patients met eligibility criteria for this review. Mortality was not significantly lower for patients receiving an LTV strategy (33.6%) as compared with control strategies (40.4%) (relative risk [RR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.08; heterogeneity statistic I = 46%), nor did an LTV strategy significantly decrease barotrauma or ventilator-free days when compared with a lower PEEP strategy. Quality of evidence for clinical outcomes was downgraded for imprecision. Metaregression showed a significant inverse association between larger tidal volume gradient between LTV and control groups and log odds ratios for mortality (β, -0.1587; P = 0.0022). Sensitivity analysis including trials that protocolized an LTV/high PEEP cointervention showed lower mortality associated with LTV (nine trials and 1,629 patients; RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; I = 46%). Compared with trials not using a high PEEP cointervention, trials using a strategy of LTV combined with high PEEP showed a greater mortality benefit (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.82; P for interaction = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The trend toward lower mortality with LTV ventilation in the primary analysis and the significant relationship between the degree of tidal volume reduction and the mortality effect together suggest, but do not prove, that LTV ventilation improves mortality among critically ill adults with ARDS.

摘要

背景

针对急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者使用小潮气量和吸气压力的试验结果喜忧参半。

目的

比较机械通气策略中限制潮气量和吸气压力(LTV)与 ARDS 患者使用 10 至 15 ml/kg 潮气量策略的临床结局。

方法

这是一项针对 LTV 机械通气策略的临床试验系统评价和荟萃分析。我们使用随机效应模型来评估 LTV 对 28 天死亡率、器官衰竭、无呼吸机天数、气压伤、氧合和通气的影响。我们的主要分析排除了 LTV 策略与较高呼气末正压(PEEP)附加策略相结合的试验,但这些试验包含在分层敏感性分析中。我们对干预组和对照组之间实现的潮气量梯度进行荟萃回归分析,以评估死亡率效应估计值。我们使用推荐评估、制定与评估(GRADE)方法来确定证据质量。

结果

有 7 项随机试验纳入了符合本综述条件的 1481 名患者。与接受常规通气策略的患者(40.4%)相比,接受 LTV 通气策略的患者死亡率(33.6%)并没有显著降低(相对风险[RR],0.87;95%置信区间[CI],0.70-1.08;异质性统计量 I = 46%),与低 PEEP 策略相比,LTV 策略也没有显著减少气压伤或无呼吸机天数。临床结局的证据质量因不精确而降低。荟萃回归显示,LTV 组与对照组之间潮气量梯度越大与死亡率的对数比值呈负相关(β,-0.1587;P = 0.0022)。包括方案设定 LTV/高 PEEP 联合干预的试验的敏感性分析显示,LTV 与较低的死亡率相关(9 项试验和 1629 名患者;RR,0.80;95%CI,0.66-0.98;I = 46%)。与未使用高 PEEP 联合干预的试验相比,使用 LTV 联合高 PEEP 策略的试验显示出更大的死亡率获益(RR,0.58;95%CI,0.41-0.82;P 交互检验 = 0.05)。

结论

主要分析中 LTV 通气有降低死亡率的趋势,以及潮气量降低程度与死亡率效应之间的显著关系共同表明,但并不能证明 LTV 通气可改善成人 ARDS 患者的死亡率。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索