scholarly journals Neuromuscular blocking agents in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Critical Care ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. R43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Waleed Alhazzani ◽  
Mohamed Alshahrani ◽  
Roman Jaeschke ◽  
Jean Forel ◽  
Laurent Papazian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Optimal Positive End Expiratory Pressure Levels in Ventilated Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Zhou ◽  
Zhimin Lin ◽  
Xiumei Deng ◽  
Baiyun Liu ◽  
Yu Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Positive End Expiratory Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Ventilated Patients

Background: To find the optimal positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) in mechanical ventilated patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different level of PEEP based on a novel classification of PEEP level: ZEEP group (PEEP = 0 cm H2O); lower PEEP group (PEEP = 1–6 cm H2O); intermediate PEEP group (PEEP = 7–10 cm H2O); higher PEEP group (PEEP > 10 cm H2O).Result: Twenty eight eligible studies with 2,712 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation between higher and intermediate PEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.14, 0.28), higher and lower PEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.23, 0.22), higher PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.40, 0.22), intermediate and lower PEEP (MD: −0.040, 95% CI: −0.18, 0.040), intermediate PEEP and ZEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.10), lower PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.32, 0.13), respectively. Higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio(PFR) when compared to ZEEP (MD: 73.24, 95% CI: 11.03, 130.7), and higher incidence of pneumothorax when compared to intermediate PEEP, lower PEEP and ZEEP (OR: 2.91e + 12, 95% CI: 40.3, 1.76e + 39; OR: 1.85e + 12, 95% CI: 29.2, 1.18e + 39; and OR: 1.44e + 12, 95% CI: 16.9, 8.70e + 38, respectively). There was no association between PEEP levels and other secondary outcomes.Conclusion: We identified higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PFR and higher incidence of pneumothorax. Nonetheless, in terms of other outcomes, no significant differences were detected among four levels of PEEP.Systematic Review Registration: The study had registered on an international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO, on 09 April 2021, identifier: [CRD42021241745].

scholarly journals Neuromuscular blocking agents in acute respiratory distress syndrome: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nehal Tarazan ◽  
◽  
Moayad Alshehri ◽  
Sameer Sharif ◽  
Zainab Al Duhailib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Deep Sedation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking Agents

Abstract Purpose Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data. Results Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86–1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57–0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35–0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain. Conclusions Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

scholarly journals Early neuromuscular blocking agents for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e037737
Author(s):  
Shuai Shao ◽  
Hanyujie Kang ◽  
Zhaohui Tong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Distress Syndrome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking ◽  
Neuromuscular Blocking Agents ◽  
Meta Regression

ObjectiveTo determine whether neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) can decrease the mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and improve their clinical outcomes.DesignSystematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov.MethodsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the treatment effect of NMBAs with that of placebo (or traditional treatment) in patients with ARDS were carefully selected. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were 21–28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications (barotrauma, pneumothorax and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired muscle weakness), days free of ventilation and days not in the ICU by day 28, Medical Research Council score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and arterial oxygen tension (PaO2)/fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) (at 48 hours and 72 hours). Random-effects meta-regression was used to explore models involving potential moderators. Trial sequential analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative effect on mortality across RCTs.ResultsNMBAs were not associated with reduced 90-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; p=0.20). However, they decreased the 21–28 days mortality (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.02) and the rates of pneumothorax (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.77; p=0.003) and barotrauma (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.86; p=0.008). In addition, NMBAs increased PaO2/FiO2 at 48 hours (mean difference (MD) 18.91; 95% CI 4.29 to 33.53; p=0.01) and 72 hours (MD 12.27; 95% CI 4.65 to 19.89; p=0.002). Meta-regression revealed an association between sample size (p=0.042) and short-term mortality. Publication year (p=0.050), sedation strategy (p=0.047) and sample size (p=0.046) were independently associated with PaO2/FiO2 at 48 hours.ConclusionsIn summary, the results suggested that use of NMBAs might reduce 21–28 days mortality, NMBA-related complications and oxygenation. However, NMBAs did not reduce the 90-day mortality of patients with ARDS, which contradicts a previous meta-analysis.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139440.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document