Literature DB >> 20197533

Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Matthias Briel1, Maureen Meade, Alain Mercat, Roy G Brower, Daniel Talmor, Stephen D Walter, Arthur S Slutsky, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Qi Zhou, Deborah Cook, Laurent Brochard, Jean-Christophe M Richard, Francois Lamontagne, Neera Bhatnagar, Thomas E Stewart, Gordon Guyatt.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Trials comparing higher vs lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in adults with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been underpowered to detect small but potentially important effects on mortality or to explore subgroup differences.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of higher vs lower PEEP with patient-important outcomes in adults with acute lung injury or ARDS who are receiving ventilation with low tidal volumes and to investigate whether these associations differ across prespecified subgroups. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996-January 2010) plus a hand search of conference proceedings (2004-January 2010). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify studies randomly assigning adults with acute lung injury or ARDS to treatment with higher vs lower PEEP (with low tidal volume ventilation) and also reporting mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Data from 2299 individual patients in 3 trials were analyzed using uniform outcome definitions. Prespecified effect modifiers were tested using multivariable hierarchical regression, adjusting for important prognostic factors and clustering effects.
RESULTS: There were 374 hospital deaths in 1136 patients (32.9%) assigned to treatment with higher PEEP and 409 hospital deaths in 1163 patients (35.2%) assigned to lower PEEP (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.04; P = .25). Treatment effects varied with the presence or absence of ARDS, defined by a value of 200 mm Hg or less for the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (P = .02 for interaction). In patients with ARDS (n = 1892), there were 324 hospital deaths (34.1%) in the higher PEEP group and 368 (39.1%) in the lower PEEP group (adjusted RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00; P = .049); in patients without ARDS (n = 404), there were 50 hospital deaths (27.2%) in the higher PEEP group and 44 (19.4%) in the lower PEEP group (adjusted RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.98-1.92; P = .07). Rates of pneumothorax and vasopressor use were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with higher vs lower levels of PEEP was not associated with improved hospital survival. However, higher levels were associated with improved survival among the subgroup of patients with ARDS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20197533     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.218

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  368 in total

1.  Modeling the time-course of ventilator-induced lung injury: what can we learn from interspecies discrepancies?

Authors:  Nicolas de Prost; Georges Saumon; Didier Dreyfuss
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  ECMO criteria for influenza A (H1N1)-associated ARDS: role of transpulmonary pressure.

Authors:  Salvatore Grasso; Pierpaolo Terragni; Alberto Birocco; Rosario Urbino; Lorenzo Del Sorbo; Claudia Filippini; Luciana Mascia; Antonio Pesenti; Alberto Zangrillo; Luciano Gattinoni; V Marco Ranieri
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Point: should positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with ARDS be set on oxygenation? Yes.

Authors:  Russell R Miller; Neil R MacIntyre; R Duncan Hite; Jonathon D Truwit; Roy G Brower; Alan H Morris
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 4.  Did studies on HFOV fail to improve ARDS survival because they did not decrease VILI? On the potential validity of a physiological concept enounced several decades ago.

Authors:  Didier Dreyfuss; Jean-Damien Ricard; Stéphane Gaudry
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 17.440

5.  Mild loss of lung aeration augments stretch in healthy lung regions.

Authors:  Maurizio Cereda; Yi Xin; Hooman Hamedani; Justin Clapp; Stephen Kadlecek; Natalie Meeder; Johnathan Zeng; Harrilla Profka; Brian P Kavanagh; Rahim R Rizi
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2015-12-10

Review 6.  Recruitment maneuvers in acute respiratory distress syndrome: The safe way is the best way.

Authors:  Raquel S Santos; Pedro L Silva; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia Rm Rocco
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2015-11-04

Review 7.  [Ventilation in acute respiratory distress. Lung-protective strategies].

Authors:  C S Bruells; R Rossaint; R Dembinski
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 8.  Ventilatory strategies and supportive care in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Andrew M Luks
Journal:  Influenza Other Respir Viruses       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.380

9.  Prone positioning reduces mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome in the low tidal volume era: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jeremy R Beitler; Shahzad Shaefi; Sydney B Montesi; Amy Devlin; Stephen H Loring; Daniel Talmor; Atul Malhotra
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Potentially modifiable factors contributing to outcome from acute respiratory distress syndrome: the LUNG SAFE study.

Authors:  John G Laffey; Giacomo Bellani; Tài Pham; Eddy Fan; Fabiana Madotto; Ednan K Bajwa; Laurent Brochard; Kevin Clarkson; Andres Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Frank van Haren; Leo M Heunks; Kiyoyasu Kurahashi; Jon Henrik Laake; Anders Larsson; Daniel F McAuley; Lia McNamee; Nicolas Nin; Haibo Qiu; Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Hermann Wrigge; Arthur S Slutsky; Antonio Pesenti
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.