Marija Barbateskovic1, Olav L Schjørring2, Sara Russo Krauss3, Christian S Meyhoff4, Janus C Jakobsen5, Bodil S Rasmussen2, Anders Perner6, Jørn Wetterslev7. 1. Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Centre for Research in Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: marija.barbateskovic@ctu.dk. 2. Centre for Research in Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 3. Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, Holbaek Hospital, Holbaek, Denmark. 6. Centre for Research in Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Centre for Research in Intensive Care, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygen supplementation is often used in acute illness but has, in some studies, been associated with harm. RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials. A clear differentiation (separation) was made between a higher (liberal) oxygenation and a lower (conservative) oxygenation strategy and their effects on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events at time points closest to 90 days in acutely ill adults. RESULTS: The study included 50 randomized clinical trials of 21,014 participants; 36 trials with a total of 20,166 participants contributed data to the analyses. Meta-analysis and TSAs showed no difference between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in trials at overall low risk of bias except for blinding: mortality relative risk (RR), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.89-1.09; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.86-1.12; low certainty evidence); serious adverse events RR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.89-1.12; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.83-1.19; low certainty evidence). The corresponding summary estimates including trials with overall low and high risk of bias showed similar results. No difference was found between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in meta-analyses and TSAs regarding quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events (very low certainty evidence). INTERPRETATION: No evidence was found of beneficial or harmful effects of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults (low to very low certainty evidence). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017058011; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
BACKGROUND: Liberal oxygen supplementation is often used in acute illness but has, in some studies, been associated with harm. RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to assess the benefits and harms of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) of randomized clinical trials. A clear differentiation (separation) was made between a higher (liberal) oxygenation and a lower (conservative) oxygenation strategy and their effects on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events at time points closest to 90 days in acutely ill adults. RESULTS: The study included 50 randomized clinical trials of 21,014 participants; 36 trials with a total of 20,166 participants contributed data to the analyses. Meta-analysis and TSAs showed no difference between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in trials at overall low risk of bias except for blinding: mortality relative risk (RR), 0.98 (95% CI, 0.89-1.09; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.86-1.12; low certainty evidence); serious adverse events RR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.89-1.12; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.83-1.19; low certainty evidence). The corresponding summary estimates including trials with overall low and high risk of bias showed similar results. No difference was found between higher and lower oxygenation strategies in meta-analyses and TSAs regarding quality of life, lung injury, sepsis, and cardiovascular events (very low certainty evidence). INTERPRETATION: No evidence was found of beneficial or harmful effects of higher vs lower oxygenation strategies in acutely ill adults (low to very low certainty evidence). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42017058011; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
Authors: Sonal R Pannu; Matthew Exline; Brett Klamer; Guy Brock; Elliott D Crouser; John W Christman; Philip Diaz Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Thomas L Klitgaard; Olav L Schjørring; Theis Lange; Morten H Møller; Anders Perner; Bodil S Rasmussen; Anders Granholm Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Thijs A Lilien; Nina S Groeneveld; Faridi van Etten-Jamaludin; Mark J Peters; Corinne M P Buysse; Shawn L Ralston; Job B M van Woensel; Lieuwe D J Bos; Reinout A Bem Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Paul J Young; John G Laffey; Pierre Asfar; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Markus B Skrifvars; Christian S Meyhoff; Peter Radermacher Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-12-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Maria Høybye; Peter C Lind; Mathias J Holmberg; Maria Bolther; Marie K Jessen; Mikael F Vallentin; Frederik B Hansen; Johanne M Holst; Andreas Magnussen; Niklas S Hansen; Cecilie M Johannsen; Johannes Enevoldsen; Thomas H Jensen; Lara L Roessler; Maibritt P Klitholm; Mark A Eggertsen; Philip Caap; Caroline Boye; Karol M Dabrowski; Lasse Vormfenne; Jeppe Henriksen; Mathias Karlsson; Ida R Balleby; Marie S Rasmussen; Kim Paelestik; Asger Granfeldt; Lars W Andersen Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 2.274
Authors: Frederik Mølgaard Nielsen; Thomas Lass Klitgaard; Elena Crescioli; Søren Rosborg Aagaard; Anne Sofie Andreasen; Lone Musaeus Poulsen; Martin Siegemund; Anne Craveiro Brøchner; Morten H Bestle; Susanne Andi Iversen; Björn A Brand; Jon Henrik Laake; Thorbjørn Grøfte; Thomas Hildebrandt; Theis Lange; Anders Perner; Olav Lilleholt Schjørring; Bodil Steen Rasmussen Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 2.274