Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of inspired oxygen in patients undergoing surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Adult Humans Intubation, Intratracheal / adverse effects Length of Stay Oxygen / administration & dosage Surgical Wound Infection / prevention & control Treatment Outcome
general anaesthesia hyperoxia postoperative outcome surgical site infection surgical wound infection

Journal

British journal of anaesthesia
ISSN: 1471-6771
Titre abrégé: Br J Anaesth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372541

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Historique:
received: 21 09 2018
revised: 26 10 2018
accepted: 05 11 2018
entrez: 17 2 2019
pubmed: 17 2 2019
medline: 23 4 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommended the use of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO We performed a systematic literature search from January 1990 to April 2018 for RCTs comparing the effect of high (80%) vs standard (30-35%) FiO Of 21 RCTs included, six were newly identified since the publication of the WHO guideline review; 17 could be included in the final analyses. Overall, no evidence for a reduction of SSI after the use of high FiO The WHO updated analyses did not show definite beneficial effect of the use of high perioperative FiO

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommended the use of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO
METHODS METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search from January 1990 to April 2018 for RCTs comparing the effect of high (80%) vs standard (30-35%) FiO
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 21 RCTs included, six were newly identified since the publication of the WHO guideline review; 17 could be included in the final analyses. Overall, no evidence for a reduction of SSI after the use of high FiO
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The WHO updated analyses did not show definite beneficial effect of the use of high perioperative FiO

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.11.024 PMID: 30770050
pubmed: 30770050
pii: S0007-0912(18)31346-1
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.11.024
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Oxygen S88TT14065

Types de publication

Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

325-334

Subventions

Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Stijn de Jonge (S)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Matthias Egger (M)

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Asad Latif (A)

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Yoon Kong Loke (YK)

Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Sean Berenholtz (S)

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Marja Boermeester (M)

Department of Surgery, Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Benedetta Allegranzi (B)

Infection Prevention and Control Global Unit, Service Delivery and Safety, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: allegranzib@who.int.

Joseph Solomkin (J)

Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Personnes › Tranches d'âge › Adulte › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Techniques d'investigation › Intubation › Intubation trachéale › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Établissements, main d'oeuvre et services de soins de santé › Services de santé › Soins aux patients › Hospitalisation › Durée du séjour › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Produits chimiques inorganiques › Gaz › Oxygène › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...
questionsmedicales.fr › États, signes et symptômes pathologiques › Processus pathologiques › Complications postopératoires › Infection de plaie opératoire › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Qualité des soins de santé › Mécanismes d'évaluation des soins de santé › Évaluation des résultats et des processus en soins de santé › Évaluation de résultat (soins) › Résultat thérapeutique › Effectiveness of 80% vs 30-35% fraction of...