Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30360
Title: Association of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Austin Authors: Dianti, Jose;Tisminetzky, Manuel;Ferreyro, Bruno L;Englesakis, Marina;Del Sorbo, Lorenzo;Sud, Sachin;Talmor, Daniel;Ball, Lorenzo;Meade, Maureen;Hodgson, Carol;Beitler, Jeremy R;Sahetya, Sarina;Nichol, Alistair;Fan, Eddy;Rochwerg, Bram;Brochard, Laurent;Slutsky, Arthur S;Ferguson, Niall D;Serpa Neto, Ary ;Adhikari, Neill K J;Angriman, Federico;Goligher, Ewan C
Affiliation: University Health Network/Sinai Health System..
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine..
Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health..
Library and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada..
Division of Respirology and Critical Care Medicine, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada..
Institute for Better Health and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada..
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts..
Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy..
Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine..
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada..
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia..
Department of Intensive Care, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia..
Center for Acute Respiratory Failure and Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York..
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland..
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland..
School of Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland..
Institute of Medical Science..
Departments of Medicine and Physiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada..
Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada..
Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada..
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil..
Department of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia..
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada..
Issue Date: 1-Jun-2022
Publication information: American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 2022; 205(11): 1300-1310
Abstract: Rationale: The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown, and current practice is variable. Objectives: To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology. Measurements and Main Results: We included 18 randomized trials (4,646 participants). Compared with a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the esophageal pressure-guided strategy was 87% (RR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR, 1.06; 95% CrI, 0.89-1.22, low certainty). Compared with a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death than lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared with higher PEEP without LRM.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30360
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202108-1972OC
ORCID: 0000-0003-2016-7003
0000-0002-8917-5266
0000-0002-2199-1056
0000-0003-3294-9838
0000-0002-9602-6509
0000-0001-9002-2075
0000-0003-0797-2374
0000-0003-2127-3609
0000-0002-8293-7061
0000-0003-4038-5382
0000-0003-0971-386X
0000-0002-0990-6701
0000-0003-1520-9387
Journal: American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine
PubMed URL: 35180042
PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35180042/
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: ARDS
PEEP
hypoxemic respiratory failure
lung recruitment maneuver
mortality
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

14
checked on Nov 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.