1 Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine.
2 Department of Physiology, and.
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Oct;14(Supplement_4):S304-S311. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201704-340OT.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment maneuvers (LRMs) may prevent ventilator-induced lung injury and improve survival.
To summarize the current evidence in support of the use of LRMs in adult patients with ARDS and to inform the recently published American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline on mechanical ventilation in ARDS.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing mechanical ventilation strategies with and without LRMs. Eligible trials were identified from among previously published systematic reviews and an updated literature search. Data on 28-day mortality, oxygenation, adverse events, and use of rescue therapy were collected, and results were pooled using random effects models weighted by inverse variance. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.
We screened 430 citations and previous systematic reviews and found six trials eligible for inclusion (n = 1,423 patients in total). The type of LRM varied widely between trials, and five of the trials involved a cointervention with a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation strategy. Risk of bias was deemed high in one trial. In the primary analysis, the only trial without a cointervention showed that LRMs were associated with reduced mortality (one trial; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.98; evidence grade = low). Meta-analysis of all six trials also suggested a significant mortality reduction (six trials; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95; evidence grade = moderate), and the use of a higher PEEP cointervention did not significantly modify the mortality effect (P = 0.27 for heterogeneity). LRMs were also associated with improved oxygenation after 24 hours (six trials; mean increase, 52 mm Hg; 95% CI, 23-81 mm Hg) and less frequent requirement for rescue therapy (three trials; RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94). LRMs were not associated with an increased rate of barotrauma (four trials; RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.55). The rate of hemodynamic compromise was not significantly increased with LRMs (three trials; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92-1.78).
Randomized trials suggest that LRMs in combination with a higher PEEP ventilation strategy reduce mortality, but confidence in this finding is limited. Further trials are required to confirm benefit from LRMs in adults with ARDS.
在急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者中,肺复张手法(LRM)可能预防呼吸机所致肺损伤并提高生存率。
总结支持在成人 ARDS 患者中使用 LRM 的当前证据,并为最近发表的美国胸科学会/欧洲危重病医学会/重症医学学会机械通气 ARDS 临床实践指南提供信息。
我们对比较有和没有 LRM 的机械通气策略的随机试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。从先前发表的系统评价和更新的文献检索中确定了合格的试验。收集了 28 天死亡率、氧合、不良事件和使用抢救治疗的数据,并使用基于倒数方差的随机效应模型进行汇总。使用推荐评估、制定和评估方法评估证据强度。
我们筛选了 430 条引文和先前的系统评价,发现了 6 项符合纳入标准的试验(共纳入 1423 名患者)。试验之间 LRM 的类型差异很大,其中 5 项试验涉及与较高的呼气末正压通气策略的联合干预。一项试验的偏倚风险被认为很高。在主要分析中,唯一没有联合干预的试验表明 LRM 与死亡率降低相关(一项试验;风险比 [RR],0.62;95%置信区间 [CI],0.39-0.98;证据等级=低)。对所有 6 项试验的荟萃分析也表明死亡率显著降低(6 项试验;RR,0.81;95%CI,0.69-0.95;证据等级=中),使用较高的 PEEP 联合干预并没有显著改变死亡率的影响(异质性 P=0.27)。LRM 还与 24 小时后氧合改善相关(6 项试验;平均增加 52mmHg;95%CI,23-81mmHg),抢救治疗的需求减少(3 项试验;RR,0.65;95%CI,0.45-0.94)。LRM 与气压伤发生率增加无关(4 项试验;RR,0.84;95%CI,0.46-1.55)。LRM 并不显著增加血流动力学受损的发生率(3 项试验;RR,1.30;95%CI,0.92-1.78)。
随机试验表明,LRM 联合较高的 PEEP 通气策略可降低死亡率,但对这一发现的信心有限。需要进一步的试验来确认 LRM 对成人 ARDS 的益处。