Airway pressure release ventilation during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Acute respiratory distress syndrome
Acute respiratory failure
Airway pressure release ventilation
Meta-analysis
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Apr 2019
04 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
17
01
2019
accepted:
30
03
2019
entrez:
6
4
2019
pubmed:
6
4
2019
medline:
6
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been considered a tempting mode of ventilation during acute respiratory failure within the concept of open lung ventilation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify whether adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure have a higher number of ventilator-free days at day 28 when ventilated in APRV compared to conventional ventilation strategy. Secondary outcomes were difference in PaO We considered five RCTs for the analysis enrolling a total of 330 patients. For ventilatory-free day at day 28, the overall mean difference (MD) between APRV and conventional ventilation was 6.04 days (95%CI 2.12, 9.96, p = 0.003; I This study showed a higher number of ventilator-free days at 28 day and a lower hospital mortality in acute hypoxemic patients treated with APRV than conventional ventilation, without any negative hemodynamic impact or higher risk of barotrauma. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution because of the low-quality evidence supporting them and the moderate heterogeneity found. Other well-designed RCTs need to be conducted to confirm our findings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) has been considered a tempting mode of ventilation during acute respiratory failure within the concept of open lung ventilation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to verify whether adult patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure have a higher number of ventilator-free days at day 28 when ventilated in APRV compared to conventional ventilation strategy. Secondary outcomes were difference in PaO
RESULTS
RESULTS
We considered five RCTs for the analysis enrolling a total of 330 patients. For ventilatory-free day at day 28, the overall mean difference (MD) between APRV and conventional ventilation was 6.04 days (95%CI 2.12, 9.96, p = 0.003; I
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed a higher number of ventilator-free days at 28 day and a lower hospital mortality in acute hypoxemic patients treated with APRV than conventional ventilation, without any negative hemodynamic impact or higher risk of barotrauma. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution because of the low-quality evidence supporting them and the moderate heterogeneity found. Other well-designed RCTs need to be conducted to confirm our findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30949778
doi: 10.1186/s13613-019-0518-7
pii: 10.1186/s13613-019-0518-7
pmc: PMC6449410
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
44Références
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Apr;159(4 Pt 1):1241-8
pubmed: 10194172
Chest. 1999 Dec;116(6):1826-32
pubmed: 10593817
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8
pubmed: 10793162
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001 Jul 1;164(1):43-9
pubmed: 11435237
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004 Jul;48(6):722-31
pubmed: 15196105
Crit Care Med. 2005 May;33(5):1090-5
pubmed: 15891341
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):W65-94
pubmed: 19622512
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 16;363(12):1107-16
pubmed: 20843245
Crit Care Med. 2012 May;40(5):1578-85
pubmed: 22430241
JAMA. 2012 Jun 20;307(23):2526-33
pubmed: 22797452
Crit Care Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):536-45
pubmed: 23263584
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135
pubmed: 25524443
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):788-800
pubmed: 26903337
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Jun;20(12):2634-41
pubmed: 27383316
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr 15;195(8):985-992
pubmed: 27786562
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 May 1;195(9):1253-1263
pubmed: 28459336
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43(11):1648-1659
pubmed: 28936695
Crit Care. 2018 May 24;22(1):136
pubmed: 29793554
Crit Care Med. 2018 Dec;46(12):1943-1952
pubmed: 30277890
Crit Care Med. 1987 May;15(5):462-6
pubmed: 3552443
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Mar;149(3 Pt 1):818-24
pubmed: 7509706
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563