Suppr超能文献

较高呼气末正压(PEEP)及肺复张手法对急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者死亡率的影响:一项随机对照试验的系统评价、荟萃分析、荟萃回归及试验序贯分析

Effects of higher PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in patients with ARDS: a systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

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

机构信息

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.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med Exp. 2020 Dec 18;8(Suppl 1):39. doi: 10.1186/s40635-020-00322-2.

Abstract

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

At low V, the routine use of higher PEEP and/or RMs did not reduce mortality in unselected patients with ARDS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017082035 .

摘要

目的

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

试验注册

PROSPERO CRD42017082035 。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1fa4/7746788/2c136aac6344/40635_2020_322_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验