Roshdy Ashraf, Elsayed Ahmad Samy, Saleh Ahmad Sabry
Critical Care Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, 54562Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Intensive Care Unit, 156506William Harvey Hospital, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Kent, UK.
J Intensive Care Med. 2023 Feb;38(2):160-168. doi: 10.1177/08850666221109779. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
To explore the evidence surrounding the use of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A Systematic electronic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the WHO COVID-19 database. We also searched the grey literature via Google and preprint servers (medRxive and research square). Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing APRV to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and reporting at least one of the following outcomes; in-hospital mortality, ventilator free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), changes in gas exchange parameters, and barotrauma. Two authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion and extracted data in a pre-specified form. Of 181 articles screened, seven studies (one randomised controlled trial, two cohort studies, and four before-after studies) were included comprising 354 patients. APRV was initiated at a mean of 1.2-13 days after intubation. APRV wasn't associated with improved mortality compared to CMV (relative risk [RR], 1.20; 95% CI 0.70-2.05; , 61%) neither better VFDs (ratio of means [RoM], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.24; , 0%) nor ICU LOS (RoM, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.79-1.51; , 57%). Compared to CMV, APRV was associated with a 33% increase in PaO/FiO ratio (RoM, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.21-1.48; , 29%) and a 9% decrease in PaCO (RoM, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; , 0%). There was no significant increased risk of barotrauma compared to CMV (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.60-4.00; , 0%). In adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, APRV is associated with improved gas exchange but not mortality nor VFDs when compared with CMV. The results were limited by high uncertainty given the low quality of the available studies and limited number of patients. Adequately powered and well-designed clinical trials to define the role of APRV in COVID-19 patients are still needed. .
为探究2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者使用气道压力释放通气(APRV)的相关证据。对PubMed、EMBASE和世界卫生组织COVID-19数据库进行系统的电子检索。我们还通过谷歌和预印本服务器(medRxive和Research Square)搜索了灰色文献。符合条件的研究包括随机对照试验和观察性研究,这些研究比较了APRV与传统机械通气(CMV)在因COVID-19导致急性低氧性呼吸衰竭的成人患者中的应用,并报告了以下至少一项结果:住院死亡率、无呼吸机天数(VFD)、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间(LOS)、气体交换参数变化和气压伤。两位作者独立筛选并选择纳入的文章,并以预先指定的形式提取数据。在筛选的181篇文章中,纳入了7项研究(1项随机对照试验、2项队列研究和4项前后对照研究),共354例患者。APRV在插管后平均1.2至13天开始使用。与CMV相比,APRV与死亡率改善无关(相对风险[RR],1.20;95%置信区间0.70 - 2.05;P = 0.61%),VFD也无改善(均值比[RoM],0.80;95%置信区间,0.52 - 1.24;P = 0%),ICU住院时间也无差异(RoM,1.10;95%置信区间,0.79 - 1.51;P = 0.57%)。与CMV相比,APRV使氧合指数(PaO₂/FiO₂)升高33%(RoM,1.33;95%置信区间,1.21 - 1.48;P = 0.29%),动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO₂)降低9%(RoM,1.09;95%置信区间,1.02 - 1.15;P = 0%)。与CMV相比,气压伤风险无显著增加(RR,1.55;95%置信区间,0.60 - 4.00;P = 0%)。在需要机械通气的COVID-19成年患者中,与CMV相比,APRV可改善气体交换,但与死亡率和VFD无关。鉴于现有研究质量低且患者数量有限,结果存在高度不确定性。仍需要开展足够样本量且设计良好的临床试验来明确APRV在COVID-19患者中的作用。