...
首页> 外文期刊>Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica >Spontaneous versus controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome – Protocol for a scoping review
【24h】

Spontaneous versus controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome – Protocol for a scoping review

机译:急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的自发与受控机械通气 - 审查评论的协议

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background In caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between controlled or spontaneous breathing modes. Observational data indicate considerable practice variation which may be driven by differences in sedation and mobilisation practices. The benefits and harms of either strategy are largely unknown. Methods A scoping review will be prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. We will review the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneous breathing in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS of any severity. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region will be considered. For inclusion, studies must include data on mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS who are allowed spontaneous (triggered ventilation). Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases without any limitation on publication date and language. We will assess the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, where appropriate. Conclusion We will perform a scoping review of the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneously breathing?in mechanically ventilated patients who fulfil ARDS criteria (including acute lung injury). This is to elucidate if a pragmatic clinical trial comparing controlled and spontaneous mechanical ventilation is warranted and will allow us to formulate relevant research questions.
机译:背景技术在用急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的机械通风成人,临床医生面临着受控或自发呼吸模式之间的不确定选择。观察数据表示可以通过镇静和动员实践的差异驱动的相当大的实践变化。任何策略的益处和危害都很大程度上是未知的。方法采取范围审查,根据首选报告项目进行制度审查和荟萃分析(PRISMA)延期进行裁员评论。我们将在机械通风患者中审查受控VS自发呼吸的临床文献。将考虑关于任何世界地区的定性和/或定量数据的研究。为了纳入,研究必须包括有关机械通风患者的数据,允许自发(触发通风)。搜索将在四个电子数据库中进行,而不对出版日期和语言进行任何限制。我们将根据建议评估,开发和评估(等级)方法的评分评估证据质量。结论我们将对受控VS自发呼吸的临床文献进行审查审查吗?在机械通风患者中,符合ARDS标准(包括急性肺损伤)。这是为了裁减比较受控和自发机械通气的语用临床试验,并将允许我们制定相关的研究问题。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者单位

    Department of Critical Care and EmergenciesOslo University HospitalOslo Norway;

    Department of AnaesthesiaAalborg University HospitalAalborg Denmark;

    Department of Intensive Care 4131Copenhagen University Hospital RigshospitaletCopenhagen Denmark;

    Department of Intensive Care 4131Copenhagen University Hospital RigshospitaletCopenhagen Denmark;

    Department of Critical Care and EmergenciesOslo University HospitalOslo Norway;

    Medical LibraryAalborg University HospitalAalborg Denmark;

    Medical LibraryOslo University HospitalOslo Norway;

    Department of AnaesthesiaAalborg University HospitalAalborg Denmark;

    Department of Critical Care and EmergenciesOslo University HospitalOslo Norway;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 麻醉学;
  • 关键词

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