Suppr超能文献

严重急性脑损伤患者的肺保护性机械通气:一项多中心随机临床试验(PROLABI)。

Lung-Protective Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial (PROLABI).

机构信息

Department of Experimental Medicine (DIMES), Campus Ecotekne, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.

Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024 Nov 1;210(9):1123-1131. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202402-0375OC.

Abstract

Lung-protective strategies using low Vt and moderate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) are considered best practice in critical care, but interventional trials have never been conducted in patients with acute brain injuries because of concerns about carbon dioxide control and the effect of PEEP on cerebral hemodynamics. To test the hypothesis that ventilation with lower VT and higher PEEP compared to conventional ventilation would improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute brain injury. In this multicenter, open-label, controlled clinical trial, 190 adult patients with acute brain injury were assigned to receive either a lung-protective or a conventional ventilatory strategy. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of death, ventilator dependency, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at Day 28. Neurological outcome was assessed at ICU discharge by the Oxford Handicap Scale and at 6 months by the Glasgow Outcome Scale. The two study arms had similar characteristics at baseline. In the lung-protective and conventional strategy groups, using an intention-to-treat approach, the composite outcome at 28 days was 61.5% and 45.3% (relative risk [RR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.79;  = 0.025). Mortality was 28.9% and 15.1% (RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.06-3.42;  = 0.02), ventilator dependency was 42.3% and 27.9% (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.01-2.28;  = 0.039), and incidence of ARDS was 30.8% and 22.1% (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.85-2.27;  = 0.179), respectively. The trial was stopped after enrolling 190 subjects because of termination of funding. In patients with acute brain injury without ARDS, a lung-protective ventilatory strategy, as compared with a conventional strategy, did not reduce mortality, percentage of patients weaned from mechanical ventilation, or incidence of ARDS and was not beneficial in terms of neurological outcomes. Because of the early termination, these preliminary results require confirmation in larger trials. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01690819).

摘要

保护性通气策略使用低潮气量和适度的呼气末正压(PEEP)被认为是重症监护的最佳实践,但由于担心二氧化碳控制和 PEEP 对脑血流动力学的影响,干预性试验从未在急性脑损伤患者中进行过。本研究旨在验证假设,即与常规通气相比,采用更低潮气量和更高 PEEP 的通气方式可改善急性脑损伤患者的临床结局。

在这项多中心、开放性、对照临床试验中,190 例急性脑损伤成年患者被分为接受保护性通气或常规通气策略组。主要终点为 28 天时死亡、呼吸机依赖和急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的复合终点。神经功能预后在 ICU 出院时采用牛津残疾量表(Oxford Handicap Scale)进行评估,在 6 个月时采用格拉斯哥结局量表(Glasgow Outcome Scale)进行评估。

两组患者在基线时具有相似的特征。在保护性通气和常规通气策略组中,采用意向治疗方法,28 天时的复合终点发生率分别为 61.5%和 45.3%(相对风险 [RR],1.35;95%置信区间 [CI],1.03-1.79;P=0.025)。死亡率分别为 28.9%和 15.1%(RR,1.91;95% CI,1.06-3.42;P=0.02),呼吸机依赖率分别为 42.3%和 27.9%(RR,1.52;95% CI,1.01-2.28;P=0.039),ARDS 发生率分别为 30.8%和 22.1%(RR,1.39;95% CI,0.85-2.27;P=0.179)。由于资金终止,该试验在纳入 190 例患者后停止。

在没有 ARDS 的急性脑损伤患者中,与常规策略相比,保护性通气策略并未降低死亡率、机械通气撤机率或 ARDS 发生率,在神经功能预后方面也没有获益。由于试验提前终止,这些初步结果需要在更大规模的试验中得到证实。该临床试验已在 www.clinicaltrials.gov 注册(NCT01690819)。

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