Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis
| Autor: | Manoela de Oliveira Prado Pasqualucci, Sergio O. Cardoso, Maria Cecília Toledo Damasceno, Victor Galvão Moura Pereira, José A Manetta, Marcus J. Schultz, Ary Serpa Neto, Daniel Crepaldi Espósito |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Intensive Care Medicine, AII - Amsterdam institute for Infection and Immunity |
| Rok vydání: | 2012 |
| Předmět: |
Lung Diseases
Risk medicine.medical_specialty ARDS medicine.medical_treatment Context (language use) Lung injury medicine Tidal Volume Humans Tidal volume Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Mechanical ventilation Lung business.industry Environmental air flow General Medicine Lung Injury respiratory system Length of Stay medicine.disease Respiration Artificial respiratory tract diseases medicine.anatomical_structure Treatment Outcome Anesthesia Emergency medicine Breathing business circulatory and respiratory physiology |
| Zdroj: | JAMA, 308(16), 1651-1659. American Medical Association |
| ISSN: | 1538-3598 0098-7484 |
| Popis: | Context Lung-protective mechanical ventilation with the use of lower tidal volumes has been found to improve outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been suggested that use of lower tidal volumes also benefits patients who do not have ARDS. Objective To determine whether use of lower tidal volumes is associated with improved outcomes of patients receiving ventilation who do not have ARDS. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2012. Study Selection Eligible studies evaluated use of lower vs higher tidal volumes in patients without ARDS at onset of mechanical ventilation and reported lung injury development, overall mortality, pulmonary infection, atelectasis, and biochemical alterations. Data Extraction Three reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. Data Synthesis Twenty articles (2822 participants) were included. Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model showed a decrease in lung injury development (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.47; I-2, 0%; number needed to treat [NNT], 11), and mortality (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; I-2, 0%; NNT, 23) in patients receiving ventilation with lower tidal volumes. The results of lung injury development were similar when stratified by the type of study (randomized vs nonrandomized) and were significant only in randomized trials for pulmonary infection and only in nonrandomized trials for mortality. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model showed, in protective ventilation groups, a lower incidence of pulmonary infection (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92; I-2, 32%; NNT, 26), lower mean (SD) hospital length of stay (6.91 [2.36] vs 8.87 [2.93] days, respectively; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.82; I-2, 75%), higher mean (SD) PaCO2 levels (41.05 [3.79] vs 37.90 [4.19] mm Hg, respectively; SMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.32; I-2, 54%), and lower mean (SD) pH values (7.37 [0.03] vs 7.40 [0.04], respectively; SMD, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.02; I-2, 96%) but similar mean (SD) ratios of PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen (304.40 [65.7] vs 312.97 [68.13], respectively; SMD, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.27; I-2, 60%). Tidal volume gradients between the 2 groups did not influence significantly the final results. Conclusions Among patients without ARDS, protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes was associated with better clinical outcomes. Some of the limitations of the meta-analysis were the mixed setting of mechanical ventilation (intensive care unit or operating room) and the duration of mechanical ventilation. JAMA. 2012;308(16):1651-1659 www.jama.com |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|