Suppr超能文献

急性脑损伤患者的机械通气:系统评价与荟萃分析。

Mechanical ventilation in patients with acute brain injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

机构信息

Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, Pôle Anesthésie Réanimations, Service d'Anesthésie Réanimation Chirurgicale, Hôtel Dieu, 44093, Nantes, France.

Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Hôtel-Dieu, University Hospital of Nantes, 1 Place Alexis Ricordeau, 44093, Nantes, France.

出版信息

Crit Care. 2023 Jun 6;27(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04509-3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe the potential effects of ventilatory strategies on the outcome of acute brain-injured patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

Systematic review with an individual data meta-analysis.

SETTING

Observational and interventional (before/after) studies published up to August 22nd, 2022, were considered for inclusion. We investigated the effects of low tidal volume Vt < 8 ml/Kg of IBW versus Vt >  = 8 ml/Kg of IBW, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) < or >  = 5 cmHO and protective ventilation (association of both) on relevant clinical outcomes.

POPULATION

Patients with acute brain injury (trauma or haemorrhagic stroke) with invasive mechanical ventilation for ≥ 24 h.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the duration of mechanical ventilation and the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO) ratio.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included eight studies with a total of 5639 patients. There was no difference in mortality between low and high tidal volume [Odds Ratio, OR 0.88 (95%Confidence Interval, CI 0.74 to 1.05), p = 0.16, I = 20%], low and moderate to high PEEP [OR 0.8 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.07), p = 0.13, I = 80%] or protective and non-protective ventilation [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.15), p = 0.6, I = 11]. Low tidal volume [OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.21, p = 0.23, I = 88%], moderate PEEP [OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.26), p = 0.9, I = 21%] or protective ventilation [OR 1.22 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.58), p = 0.13, I = 22%] did not affect the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Protective ventilation improved the PaO/FiO ratio in the first five days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Low tidal volume, moderate to high PEEP, or protective ventilation were not associated with mortality and lower incidence of ARDS in patients with acute brain injury undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. However, protective ventilation improved oxygenation and could be safely considered in this setting. The exact role of ventilatory management on the outcome of patients with a severe brain injury needs to be more accurately delineated.

摘要

目的

描述通气策略对接受有创机械通气的急性脑损伤患者结局的潜在影响。

设计

系统评价和个体数据荟萃分析。

设置

纳入截止 2022 年 8 月 22 日发表的观察性和干预性(前后)研究。我们研究了小潮气量 Vt<8ml/Kg IBW 与 Vt≥8ml/Kg IBW、呼气末正压(PEEP)<或≥5cmH2O 和保护性通气(两者联合)对相关临床结局的影响。

人群

接受有创机械通气≥24 小时的急性脑损伤(创伤或出血性中风)患者。

主要观察指标

主要结局为 28 天或院内死亡率。次要结局为急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)发生率、机械通气时间和氧分压(PaO)/吸入氧分数(FiO)比值。

结果

荟萃分析纳入了八项研究,共 5639 例患者。低潮气量与大潮气量之间的死亡率无差异[比值比(OR)0.88(95%置信区间,CI 0.74 至 1.05),p=0.16,I²=20%],低 PEEP 与中至高 PEEP 之间的死亡率也无差异[OR 0.8(95%CI 0.59 至 1.07),p=0.13,I²=80%],保护性通气与非保护性通气之间的死亡率也无差异[OR 1.03(95%CI 0.93 至 1.15),p=0.6,I²=11%]。低潮气量[OR 0.74(95%CI 0.45 至 1.21,p=0.23,I²=88%]、中 PEEP[OR 0.98(95%CI 0.76 至 1.26),p=0.9,I²=21%]或保护性通气[OR 1.22(95%CI 0.94 至 1.58),p=0.13,I²=22%]均不影响 ARDS 的发生率。保护性通气在机械通气的前五天改善了 PaO/FiO 比值(p<0.01)。

结论

在接受有创机械通气的急性脑损伤患者中,小潮气量、中至高 PEEP 或保护性通气与死亡率和 ARDS 发生率较低无关。然而,保护性通气可改善氧合作用,在这种情况下可安全考虑使用。通气管理对严重脑损伤患者结局的确切作用需要更准确地确定。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1712/10242967/eb35c5b1498a/13054_2023_4509_Fig2_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验