...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Intensive Care >Recruitment maneuver does not provide any mortality benefit over lung protective strategy ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the randomized controlled trials
【24h】

Recruitment maneuver does not provide any mortality benefit over lung protective strategy ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the randomized controlled trials

机译:对于成年人急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者,招募策略没有比肺保护策略通气带来任何死亡益处:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析和系统评价

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Clinical benefits of recruitment maneuver in ARDS patients are controversial. A number of previous studies showed possible benefits; a large recent study reported that recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration may even be harmful. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the clinical utility of recruitment maneuver with low tidal volume ventilation in adult patients with ARDS. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing recruitment maneuver and lung protective ventilation strategy with lung protective strategy ventilation protocol alone in adult patients with ARDS has been included in this meta-analysis. PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 10 November 2017 to identify potentially eligible trials. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated for binary and continuous variables respectively. Results Data of 2480 patients from 7 randomized controlled trials have been included in this meta-analysis and systemic review. Reported mortality at the longest available follow-up [RR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.80, 1.08); p =?0.33], ICU mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.76, 1.10); p =?0.33] and in-hospital mortality [RR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.83, 1.08); p =?0.45] were similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Duration of hospital stay [SMD (95% CI) 0.00 (??0.09, 0.10); p =?0.92] and duration of ICU stays [SMD (95% CI) 0.05 (??0.09, 0.19); p =?0.49] were also similar between recruitment maneuver group and standard lung protective ventilation group. Risk of barotrauma was also similar. Conclusion Use of recruitment maneuver along with co-interventions such as PEEP titration does not provide any benefit in terms of mortality, length of ICU, and hospital stay in ARDS patients.
机译:背景技术在ARDS患者中进行募集演习的临床益处存在争议。先前的许多研究表明可能的好处。最近的一项大型研究报告称,招募策略和PEEP滴定甚至可能有害。这项荟萃分析旨在比较招募手法与低潮气量通气在成人ARDS患者中的临床效用。方法该荟萃分析包括将成人ARDS患者的招募策略和肺保护通气策略与单独的肺保护通气方案进行比较的随机对照试验。从开始到2017年11月10日,对PubMed和Cochrane对照试验中央注册系统进行了搜索,以确定可能合格的试验。分别针对二元变量和连续变量计算了合并风险比(RR)和标准化均值差(SMD)。结果这项荟萃分析和系统评价纳入了来自7个随机对照试验的2480例患者的数据。在最长的随访中报告的死亡率[RR(95%CI)0.93(0.80,1.08); p =?0.33],ICU死亡率[RR(95%CI)0.91(0.76,1.10); p =?0.33]和院内死亡率[RR(95%CI)0.95(0.83,1.08); p =?0.45]在招募策略组和标准肺保护通气组之间相似。住院时间[SMD(95%CI)0.00(?0.09,0.10); p = 0.92]和ICU停留时间[SMD(95%CI)0.05(0.09,0.19)。 p =?0.49]在招募策略组和标准肺保护通气组之间也相似。气压伤的风险也相似。结论在ARDS患者中,采用招募策略以及诸如PEEP滴定之类的联合干预措施不会对死亡率,ICU时间和住院时间产生任何益处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号