Michael Charlesworth1, Tom Lawton2, Stephen Fletcher2. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Central Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, UK. 2. Department of Critical Care, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find, critically appraise and synthesise all published studies so as to determine the safety and spectrum of use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure following oesophagectomy. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched and the quality of the studies and any bias or confounding were rated according to established protocols. Outcomes extracted included re-intubation, anastomotic leakage, length of intensive care unit stay and mortality. The data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Pooling of outcomes was considered if appropriate. RESULTS: The search identified four papers, demonstrating the understudying/underreporting of the topic. Three were case-series and one was a conference abstract. The overall methodological quality was low. Design-specific biases and confounding were high. Despite this, the included studies conclude that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is safe and effective and that re-intubation rates, intensive care unit length of stay, mortality and anastomotic dehiscence is lower when it is used. Meta-analysis was deemed to be inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the conclusions and consensus of the included studies, there is no evidence to definitively conclude that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is either safe or dangerous following oesophagectomy and the current literary evidence is inadequate. Current practice varies and is based on opinion and consensus. As such, randomised controlled studies are urgently required as current practice may cause undue harm to patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use needs to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: To find, critically appraise and synthesise all published studies so as to determine the safety and spectrum of use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure following oesophagectomy. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched and the quality of the studies and any bias or confounding were rated according to established protocols. Outcomes extracted included re-intubation, anastomotic leakage, length of intensive care unit stay and mortality. The data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Pooling of outcomes was considered if appropriate. RESULTS: The search identified four papers, demonstrating the understudying/underreporting of the topic. Three were case-series and one was a conference abstract. The overall methodological quality was low. Design-specific biases and confounding were high. Despite this, the included studies conclude that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is safe and effective and that re-intubation rates, intensive care unit length of stay, mortality and anastomotic dehiscence is lower when it is used. Meta-analysis was deemed to be inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the conclusions and consensus of the included studies, there is no evidence to definitively conclude that noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is either safe or dangerous following oesophagectomy and the current literary evidence is inadequate. Current practice varies and is based on opinion and consensus. As such, randomised controlled studies are urgently required as current practice may cause undue harm to patients. The incidence of anastomotic leakage with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use needs to be determined.
Authors: E Girou; F Schortgen; C Delclaux; C Brun-Buisson; F Blot; Y Lefort; F Lemaire; L Brochard Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-11-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: I Auriant; A Jallot; P Hervé; J Cerrina; F Le Roy Ladurie; J L Fournier; B Lescot; F Parquin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: M Antonelli; G Conti; M Rocco; M Bufi; R A De Blasi; G Vivino; A Gasparetto; G U Meduri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-08-13 Impact factor: 91.245