Suppr超能文献

成人机械通气撤机时先进闭环通气模式与压力支持通气的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparison of advanced closed-loop ventilation modes with pressure support ventilation for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Kampolis Christos F, Mermiri Maria, Mavrovounis Georgios, Koutsoukou Antonia, Loukeri Angeliki A, Pantazopoulos Ioannis

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, "Hippokration" General Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, General University Hospital of Larissa, Mezourlo 41110, Larissa, Greece.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2022 Apr;68:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.11.010. Epub 2021 Nov 25.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), proportional assist ventilation (PAV), adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and Smartcare pressure support (Smartcare/PS) with standard pressure support ventilation (PSV) regarding their effectiveness for weaning critically ill adults from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NAVA, PAV, ASV, or Smartcare/PS with PSV, in adult patients under IMV through July 28, 2021. Primary outcome was weaning success. Secondary outcomes included weaning time, total MV duration, reintubation or use of non-invasive MV (NIMV) within 48 h after extubation, in-hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS) (PROSPERO registration No:CRD42021270299).

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were finally included. Compared to PSV, NAVA was associated with significantly lower risk for in-hospital and ICU death and lower requirements for post-extubation NIMV. Moreover, PAV showed significant advantage over PSV in terms of weaning rates, MV duration and ICU LOS. No significant differences were found between ASV or Smart care/PS and PSV.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggest that PAV increases weaning success rates, shortens MV duration and ICU LOS compared to PSV. It is also noteworthy that NAVA seems to improve in-hospital and ICU survival.

摘要

目的

比较神经调节通气辅助(NAVA)、比例辅助通气(PAV)、适应性支持通气(ASV)和智能监护压力支持(Smartcare/PS)与标准压力支持通气(PSV)在危重症成年患者有创机械通气(IMV)撤机方面的有效性。

方法

检索电子数据库,以确定在2021年7月28日前对接受IMV的成年患者中比较NAVA、PAV、ASV或Smartcare/PS与PSV的平行组随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局为撤机成功。次要结局包括撤机时间、总机械通气时长、拔管后48小时内再次插管或使用无创机械通气(NIMV)、住院和重症监护病房(ICU)死亡率、住院和ICU住院时间(LOS)(国际前瞻性系统评价注册编号:CRD42021270299)。

结果

最终纳入20项RCT。与PSV相比,NAVA与显著更低的住院和ICU死亡风险以及更低的拔管后NIMV需求相关。此外,PAV在撤机成功率、机械通气时长和ICU住院时间方面比PSV具有显著优势。ASV或Smartcare/PS与PSV之间未发现显著差异。

结论

中等确定性证据表明,与PSV相比,PAV可提高撤机成功率,缩短机械通气时长和ICU住院时间。同样值得注意的是,NAVA似乎可改善住院和ICU生存率。

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

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