Ball Lorenzo, Serpa Neto Ary, Trifiletti Valeria, Mandelli Maura, Firpo Iacopo, Robba Chiara, Gama de Abreu Marcelo, Schultz Marcus J, Patroniti Nicolò, Rocco Patricia R M, Pelosi Paolo
Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 8, 16131, Genova, Italy.
Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino IRCCS per l'Oncologia e le Neuroscienze, Genova, Italy.
Intensive Care Med Exp. 2020 Dec 18;8(Suppl 1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40635-020-00322-2.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment could be maximised with the use of recruitment manoeuvres (RM) or applying a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) higher than what is necessary to maintain minimal adequate oxygenation. We aimed to determine whether ventilation strategies using higher PEEP and/or RMs could decrease mortality in patients with ARDS.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1996 to December 2019, included randomized controlled trials comparing ventilation with higher PEEP and/or RMs to strategies with lower PEEP and no RMs in patients with ARDS. We computed pooled estimates with a DerSimonian-Laird mixed-effects model, assessing mortality and incidence of barotrauma, population characteristics, physiologic variables and ventilator settings. We performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) and a meta-regression.
Excluding two studies that used tidal volume (V) reduction as co-intervention, we included 3870 patients from 10 trials using higher PEEP alone (n = 3), combined with RMs (n = 6) or RMs alone (n = 1). We did not observe differences in mortality (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.84-1.09], p = 0.50) nor in incidence of barotrauma (RR 1.22, 95% CI [0.93-1.61], p = 0.16). In the meta-regression, the PEEP difference between intervention and control group at day 1 and the use of RMs were not associated with increased risk of barotrauma. The TSA reached the required information size for mortality (n = 2928), and the z-line surpassed the futility boundary.
At low V, the routine use of higher PEEP and/or RMs did not reduce mortality in unselected patients with ARDS.
PROSPERO CRD42017082035 .
在急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者中,可通过采用肺复张手法(RM)或应用高于维持最低充足氧合所需水平的呼气末正压(PEEP)来实现肺复张最大化。我们旨在确定使用较高PEEP和/或RM的通气策略是否能降低ARDS患者的死亡率。
我们检索了1996年至2019年12月期间的MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL数据库,纳入了比较在ARDS患者中使用较高PEEP和/或RM通气与较低PEEP且无RM通气策略的随机对照试验。我们使用DerSimonian-Laird混合效应模型计算汇总估计值,评估死亡率、气压伤发生率、人群特征、生理变量和呼吸机设置。我们进行了试验序贯分析(TSA)和Meta回归分析。
排除两项将潮气量(V)降低作为联合干预措施的研究后,我们纳入了来自10项试验的3870例患者,这些试验单独使用较高PEEP(n = 3)、联合使用RM(n = 6)或单独使用RM(n = )。我们未观察到死亡率(相对危险度,RR 0.96,95%置信区间,CI [0.84 - 1.09],p = 0.50)或气压伤发生率(RR 1.22,95% CI [0.93 - 1.61],p = 0.16)存在差异。在Meta回归分析中,干预组与对照组第1天的PEEP差值和RM的使用与气压伤风险增加无关。TSA达到了死亡率所需的信息量(n = 2928),且z线超过了无效界值。
在低V时,常规使用较高PEEP和/或RM并不能降低未选择的ARDS患者的死亡率。
PROSPERO CRD42017082035 。