Joris Pensier1, Audrey de Jong2, Zied Hajjej3, Nicolas Molinari4, Julie Carr1, Fouad Belafia1, Gérald Chanques2, Emmanuel Futier5, Elie Azoulay6, Samir Jaber7. 1. Anesthesiology and Intensive Care; Anesthesia and Critical Care Department B, Saint Eloi Teaching Hospital, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Montpellier, 34295, Montpellier cedex 5, France. 2. Anesthesiology and Intensive Care; Anesthesia and Critical Care Department B, Saint Eloi Teaching Hospital, PhyMedExp, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Montpellier, University of Montpellier, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, 34295, Montpellier cedex 5, France. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Military Hospital of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia. 4. Department of Statistics, University of Montpellier Lapeyronie Hospital, UMR 729 MISTEA, Montpellier, France. 5. Département de Médecine Périopératoire, Anesthésie et Réanimation, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 6. Medical Intensive Care Unit, APHP, Hôpital St-Louis, Paris, France. 7. Anesthesiology and Intensive Care; Anesthesia and Critical Care Department B, Saint Eloi Teaching Hospital, PhyMedExp, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Montpellier, University of Montpellier, INSERM U1046, CNRS UMR 9214, 34295, Montpellier cedex 5, France. s-jaber@chu-montpellier.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Among acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients in intensive care units, the efficacy of lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) use is uncertain taking into account the most recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to estimate the effect of LRMs on mortality from ARDS. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for RCTs comparing mechanical ventilation with and without LRMs in adults with ARDS. We generated pooled relative risks (RR), mean difference, performed trial-sequential-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were oxygenation evaluated by PaO2/FiO2 ratio, rate of rescue therapy and rate of hemodynamic compromise. RESULTS: In 14 RCTs including 3185 patients, LRMs were not associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.82-1.04, P = 0.21), compared to no-LRM. Trial-sequential-analysis showed that the required information size has been accrued. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly higher in the LRMs group in comparison to the no-LRM group (mean difference = 47.6 mmHg, 95% CI 33.4-61.8, P < 0.001). LRMs were associated with a decreased rate of rescue therapy (RR = 0.69 95% CI 0.56-0.84, P < 0.001), and an increased rate of hemodynamic compromise (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, P = 0.002), compared to no-LRM group. Using cumulative meta-analysis, a significant change for effect on mortality was observed after 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that in ARDS patients, systematic use of LRMs does not significantly improve 28-day mortality. However, LRM use was associated with positive effects such as an oxygenation improvement and a less frequent use of rescue therapy. Nevertheless, LRM use was associated with negative effects such as hemodynamic impairment.
PURPOSE: Among acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients in intensive care units, the efficacy of lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) use is uncertain taking into account the most recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to estimate the effect of LRMs on mortality from ARDS. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for RCTs comparing mechanical ventilation with and without LRMs in adults with ARDS. We generated pooled relative risks (RR), mean difference, performed trial-sequential-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were oxygenation evaluated by PaO2/FiO2 ratio, rate of rescue therapy and rate of hemodynamic compromise. RESULTS: In 14 RCTs including 3185 patients, LRMs were not associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.82-1.04, P = 0.21), compared to no-LRM. Trial-sequential-analysis showed that the required information size has been accrued. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly higher in the LRMs group in comparison to the no-LRM group (mean difference = 47.6 mmHg, 95% CI 33.4-61.8, P < 0.001). LRMs were associated with a decreased rate of rescue therapy (RR = 0.69 95% CI 0.56-0.84, P < 0.001), and an increased rate of hemodynamic compromise (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, P = 0.002), compared to no-LRM group. Using cumulative meta-analysis, a significant change for effect on mortality was observed after 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that in ARDSpatients, systematic use of LRMs does not significantly improve 28-day mortality. However, LRM use was associated with positive effects such as an oxygenation improvement and a less frequent use of rescue therapy. Nevertheless, LRM use was associated with negative effects such as hemodynamic impairment.
Authors: Samir Jaber; Amélie Rolle; Boris Jung; Gerald Chanques; Helena Bertet; David Galeazzi; Claire Chauveton; Nicolas Molinari; Audrey De Jong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Prashant Nasa; Elie Azoulay; Ashish K Khanna; Ravi Jain; Sachin Gupta; Yash Javeri; Deven Juneja; Pradeep Rangappa; Krishnaswamy Sundararajan; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Yaseen M Arabi; Jan Bakker; Laurent J Brochard; Adam M Deane; Bin Du; Sharon Einav; Andrés Esteban; Ognjen Gajic; Samuel M Galvagno; Claude Guérin; Samir Jaber; Gopi C Khilnani; Younsuck Koh; Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou; Flavia R Machado; Manu L N G Malbrain; Jordi Mancebo; Michael T McCurdy; Brendan A McGrath; Sangeeta Mehta; Armand Mekontso-Dessap; Mervyn Mer; Michael Nurok; Pauline K Park; Paolo Pelosi; John V Peter; Jason Phua; David V Pilcher; Lise Piquilloud; Peter Schellongowski; Marcus J Schultz; Manu Shankar-Hari; Suveer Singh; Massimiliano Sorbello; Ravindranath Tiruvoipati; Andrew A Udy; Tobias Welte; Sheila N Myatra Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Carlos Ferrando; Fernando Suarez-Sipmann; Ricard Mellado-Artigas; María Hernández; Alfredo Gea; Egoitz Arruti; César Aldecoa; Graciela Martínez-Pallí; Miguel A Martínez-González; Arthur S Slutsky; Jesús Villar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Audrey De Jong; Hermann Wrigge; Goran Hedenstierna; Luciano Gattinoni; Davide Chiumello; Jean-Pierre Frat; Lorenzo Ball; Miet Schetz; Peter Pickkers; Samir Jaber Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 17.440