Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/34416
Title: Higher PEEP for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.
Austin Authors: Serpa Neto, Ary ;Tomlinson, George;Sahetya, Sarina K;Ball, Lorenzo;Nichol, Alistair D;Hodgson, Carol;Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi;Briel, Matthias;de Abreu, Marcelo Gama;Pelosi, Paolo;Schultz, Marcus J;Goligher, Ewan C
Affiliation: Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ont, Canada.;Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada.;Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA.
Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Intensive Care Unit, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.;University College Dublin Clinical Research Centre, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Research Institute, Hospital do Coragäo, Säo Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont, Canada.;Department of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Pulmonary Engineering Group, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, San Martino Policlinico Hospital, IRCCS for Oncology, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.;Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.;Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.;Mahidol Oxford Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Medicine, University Health Network, Toronto, Ont, Canada.;Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada.;Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont, Canada.
Data Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre
Issue Date: Jun-2021
Date: 2023
Publication information: Critical Care and Resuscitation : Journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine 2021-06; 23(2)
Abstract: Objective: Benefit or harm of higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of higher levels of PEEP in patients with ARDS under a Bayesian framework. Design: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower PEEP in adult patients with ARDS. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1996 to 1 March 2020. Review methods: We extracted data from high quality randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower levels of PEEP in adult patients, using low tidal volume in both arms, and conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis using aggregate data from these studies. Results: Eight clinical trials including 3703 patients (n = 1833 for higher PEEP, n = 1870 for lower PEEP) were included. Under a minimally informative prior, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 65% (relative risk, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.78-1.14]). In patients with moderate-to- severe ARDS, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 77% (relative risk, 0.94 [95% credible interval, 0.77-1.13]). Down-weighting studies that employed a maximum recruitment strategy by 100% increased the posterior probability of benefit to 92% under a minimally informative prior. Conclusions: The probability of benefit or harm from routine use of higher PEEP for patients with ARDS ranges from 27% to 86%, and from 14% to 73% depending on one's prior, suggesting continued uncertainty and equipoise regarding the benefit of PEEP If data from trials using a maximum recruitment strategy is discounted to some extent because of uncertainty over the appropriateness of this approach, the available evidence suggests that higher PEEP could be beneficial for moderate-to-severe ARDS. However, well powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/34416
DOI: 10.51893/2021.2.oa4
ORCID: 
Journal: Critical Care and Resuscitation : Journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine
Start page: 171
End page: 182
PubMed URL: 38045516
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

12
checked on Dec 26, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


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