Suppr超能文献

比较针对限定驱动压与低潮气量通气对 COVID-19 相关急性呼吸窘迫综合征机械通气成人死亡率影响的探索性目标模拟试验。

Comparing the impact of targeting limited driving pressure to low tidal volume ventilation on mortality in mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19 ARDS: an exploratory target trial emulation.

机构信息

Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Long Beach, California, USA

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open Respir Res. 2024 Oct 1;11(1):e002439. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002439.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

An association between driving pressure (∆P) and the outcomes of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) may exist. However, the effect of a sustained limitation of ∆P on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS)) undergoing IMV, has not been rigorously evaluated. The use of emulations of a target trial in intensive care unit research remains in its infancy. To inform future, large ARDS target trials, we explored using a target trial emulation approach to analyse data from a cohort of IMV adults with C-ARDS to determine whether maintaining daily ∆p<15 cm HO (in addition to traditional low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) (tidal volume 5-7 cc/PBW+plateau pressure (P) ≤30 cm HO), compared with LTVV alone, affects the 28-day mortality.

METHODS

To emulate a target trial, adults with C-ARDS requiring >24 hours of IMV were considered to be assigned to limited ∆P or LTVV. Lung mechanics were measured twice daily after ventilator setting adjustments were made. To evaluate the effect of each lung-protective ventilation (LPV) strategy on the 28-day mortality, we fit a stabilised inverse probability weighted marginal structural model that adjusted for baseline and time-varying confounders known to affect protection strategy use/adherence or survival.

RESULTS

Among the 92 patients included, 27 (29.3%) followed limited ∆P ventilation, 23 (25.0%) the LTVV strategy and 42 (45.7%) received no LPV strategy. The adjusted estimated 28-day survival was 47.0% (95% CI 23%, 76%) in the limited ∆P group, 70.3% in the LTVV group (95% CI 37.6%, 100%) and 37.6% (95% CI 20.8%, 58.0%) in the no LPV strategy group.

INTERPRETATION

Limiting ∆P may not provide additional survival benefits for patients with C-ARDS over LTVV. Our results help inform the development of future target trial emulations focused on evaluating LPV strategies, including reduced ∆P, in adults with ARDS.

摘要

背景

驱动压(∆P)与有创机械通气(IMV)结果之间可能存在关联。然而,在接受 IMV 的急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者(包括 COVID-19 相关急性呼吸窘迫综合征(C-ARDS)患者)中,持续限制 ∆P 对死亡率的影响尚未得到严格评估。在重症监护病房研究中模拟目标试验的应用仍处于起步阶段。为了为未来的大型 ARDS 目标试验提供信息,我们探索了使用目标试验模拟方法来分析接受 IMV 的 C-ARDS 成人队列的数据,以确定与单独使用低潮气量通气(LTVV)(潮气量 5-7 cc/PBW+平台压(P)≤30 cmHO)相比,每天维持 ∆p<15 cmHO(外加)是否会影响 28 天死亡率。

方法

为了模拟目标试验,需要接受 >24 小时 IMV 的 C-ARDS 成人被认为被分配到限制 ∆P 或 LTVV。在调整呼吸机设置后,每天测量两次肺力学。为了评估每种肺保护性通气(LPV)策略对 28 天死亡率的影响,我们拟合了一个稳定的逆概率加权边缘结构模型,该模型调整了已知影响保护策略使用/依从性或生存的基线和时变混杂因素。

结果

在纳入的 92 名患者中,27 名(29.3%)接受了限制 ∆P 通气,23 名(25.0%)接受了 LTVV 策略,42 名(45.7%)未接受 LPV 策略。在限制 ∆P 组中,调整后的估计 28 天生存率为 47.0%(95%CI 23%,76%),LTVV 组为 70.3%(95%CI 37.6%,100%),无 LPV 策略组为 37.6%(95%CI 20.8%,58.0%)。

解释

在接受 LTVV 的 C-ARDS 患者中,限制 ∆P 可能不会带来额外的生存获益。我们的结果有助于为未来的目标试验模拟提供信息,重点是评估 ARDS 成人的 LPV 策略,包括降低 ∆P。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/262e/11448172/e9b359d7b112/bmjresp-11-1-g001.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